Opinion ID: 1880698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Negligent claim handling

Text: ¶ 41. Mrs. Owens further claims that Farm Bureau negligently, and in bad faith, handled her claim. Again, we begin by recognizing that this claim was presented to, and rejected by, the jury. Thus, our task is to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Farm Bureau, the facts so overwhelmingly favor Mrs. Owens's claim that reasonable jurors could not have found in favor of Farm Bureau. ¶ 42. The precise claim, according to both Mr. and Mrs. Owens, is that Farm Bureau should have settled their claim sooner. Specifically, Mrs. Owens says that in May 1999, when Dr. Gober reported to Farm Bureau that Mrs. Owens's condition had plateaued, Farm Bureau should have tendered the full available UM benefits under the policy. Instead, it began paying medical bills [6] from available UM coverage. Mrs. Owens argues that Farm Bureau was not acting as a good Samaritan but rather was paying medical bills with Appellant's own money and earning interest for itself from those funds being wrongfully withheld. ¶ 43. On the other hand, Farm Bureau directs us to the following testimony of Mr. Owens: Q. Okay. Mr. Owens, Jimmy Sutherland took over this claim right after you told Kelly Smith it looked like you all were going to need some help; right? A. That's correct. Q. And within just a matter of a few days, Jimmy Sutherland was in contact with you; correct? A. Yes sir. That's correct.    Q. And to this day, you don't think that Jimmy Sutherland or anybody at Farm Bureau had any malice or ill will toward either you or Mrs. Owens; do you? A. They did not. Q. And you don't think that either Jimmy Sutherland or anybody else at Farm Bureau had any motivation to do anything other than to try to help you and Mrs. Owens; right? A. That's right.    Q. And Jimmy Sutherland, on more than one occasion, said, When you all get ready to sit down and settle your claim, let me know; right? A. I can't recall that I  it may have been said. Q. If Jimmy says that he did that, you would not disagree with that; would you? A. That's correct.    Q. Okay. So you never told and Mrs. Owens never told Jimmy Sutherland I'm ready to sit down and see if we can get the rest of this uninsured motorist money; did you? A. No. ¶ 44. Mr. Owens went on to testify that he was unaware that when Farm Bureau tendered a check for the balance of UM benefits ($232,888.23), Mrs. Owens's attorney returned the check to Farm Bureau with a letter of rebuke, stating that he was stunned to receive the check, and that I told you on August 28, 2000 that my client was not ready to receive those funds. Upon learning of the letter (at trial on the witness stand), Mr. Owens agreed that the attorney was speaking for him and Mrs. Owens. ¶ 45. Mrs. Owens provided similar testimony, stating that soon after she initiated her claim, Farm Bureau contacted her and explained her available coverage. She also agreed that she thought Sutherland always had her best interest at heart. ¶ 46. Additionally, Mrs. Owens's expert, John Kornegay, testified that he was not implying in any way that Farm Bureau handled Owens's claim in an inappropriate way. ¶ 47. This evidence, though conflicting with evidence presented by Mrs. Owens, is sufficient to support a jury verdict in favor of Farm Bureau.
¶ 48. Finally, Mrs. Owens asserts that she is entitled to a new trial because this verdict was the result of bias, passion and prejudice. Mrs. Owens asserts that Farm Bureau's attorney made personal attacks on her and her husband at the trial. She further states that the attorney questioned them about irrelevant and immaterial aspects of their lives, and made repeated references to their economic status in an attempt to prejudice the jury. ¶ 49. We have reviewed the entire transcript, and we find that, at times during the trial, both Farm Bureau's counsel and counsel for Mrs. Owens were verbally warned or reprimanded by the trial court for inappropriate remarks to the court and/or a witness. At times, hostile attitudes were exhibited on the part of attorneys and witnesses. Through the questioning of jurors in voir dire, defense counsel was able to make the jury aware that the Owenses were members of a country club, traveled to Europe and other destinations, and had supported Republican politicians. Although a carefully crafted motion in limine could have resulted in the information coming before the jury in a more benign manner, we find the questions were reasonably calculated to learn information about jurors, and possible contacts, affiliations and beliefs which might bear on the decision to exercise peremptory strikes of jurors. We also find that the remarks and information complained of, taken individually or as a whole, do not justify a new trial.