Opinion ID: 3021007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Identity of the Body Pulled From the River

Text: Federal Kemper argues that under Pennsylvania law,2 the jury instructions and the verdict form used at trial should have required the jury to specifically determine whether the body pulled from the Ganges River was that of Mrs. Sampathachar, rather than simply requiring the jury to determine whether Mrs. Sampathachar was dead.3 We consider the legal correctness of jury instructions and verdict forms de novo. See United States v. Antico, 275 F.3d 245, 255 (3d Cir. 2001); United States v. Stiger, 413 F.3d 1185, 1190 (10th Cir. 2005). Federal Kemper provides no support for its claim of error in the jury instructions and verdict form. A plaintiff asserting a breach of contract claim under Pennsylvania law must establish three elements: “(1) the existence of a contract, including its essential 2 The District Court concluded that Pennsylvania law was applicable to this case, and neither party appeals that finding here. 3 On this point, the verdict form included the following interrogatory: (1) “Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Pannathpur Jaylakshmi Sampathachar is dead?” Federal Kemper proposed the following alternative: “Do you find that Kakkadasan Sampathachar has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the body retrieved from the Ganges River on November 6, 2001 was his wife, Pannathpur Sampathachar?” 5 terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract[,] and (3) resultant damages.” Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 225 (3d Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Federal Kemper did not dispute the existence of the contract and the applicable damages were not in question. The central issue at trial, then, was whether Federal Kemper breached its duty under the contract by failing to pay life insurance benefits to the plaintiff. Under the contract, payment was due only upon the death of the insured, and Federal Kemper based its defense on the assertion that Mrs. Sampathachar was not dead. Thus, plaintiff’s burden was to prove to the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that Mrs. Sampathachar was dead.4 This requirement was fully described to the jury in both the jury instructions and the verdict form. The District Court therefore did not err in refusing to require the jury to make a separate finding that the body found in the Ganges River was that of Mrs. Sampathachar.5