Opinion ID: 2973461
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inclusion of “August 1994” in Instruction 23

Text: Finally, CPL argues that the district court erred in including in the instruction the “disputed fact” that damage to the insured property was first observed in August 1994. However, it has not argued how the district court plainly erred. CPL admitted in open court that it first observed damage to its property in August 1994, and the undisputed facts show that this is so. It is not plain error to include an undisputed fact in a jury instruction. Cf., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Eason, 17 F.3d 1126, 1133 (8th Cir. 1994) (stating that a jury instruction that assumes a disputed fact is prejudicial error). Moreover, the fact that CPL “first observed damage to its property in August, 1994” likewise does not preclude the jury from finding that the loss was progressive. The district court correctly 12 instructed the jury on Ohio law with regard to what “immediately” means, stating that it means “within a reasonable time under the circumstances of the case.” The determination of whether CPL gave notice “immediately” after the “loss” was properly left to the jury, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that CPL did not give notice of its “loss” “immediately.” The instruction given did not “prevent[] the jury from considering a material issue,” United States v. Mentz, 840 F.2d 315, 320 (6th Cir. 1988), and was therefore not erroneously given.