Opinion ID: 1730891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DAPTS's Motions for Directed Verdict and J.N.O.V. on Count One

Text: DAPTS correctly points out that there is no cause of action for malicious prosecution unless a judicial proceeding was instigated by the present defendant. Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors, 402 So.2d 958 (Ala.1981). DAPTS argues that its agent, Yeager, did not instigate Reynolds's arrest, but merely provided information that led to Reynolds's arrest. DAPTS points out that Officer Farris, not Yeager, signed the arrest warrant, after he had conducted his investigation. DAPTS relies on Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors , a malicious prosecution case wherein this Court held that a defendant who provides information that results in another's arrest is not regarded as having instigated the arrest. This Court stated: [If a person] merely gives the district attorney's office information regarding an alleged crime, leaving the decision to prosecute entirely to the uncontrolled discretion of the district attorney, who thereafter makes his own independent investigation and thereupon takes the information before the grand jury [and the grand jury] returns indictments against the suspects,... in a malicious prosecution action [that person] is not regarded as having instigated the criminal proceeding. 402 So.2d at 962. The Neighbors rule allows a citizen to fulfill one's civic duty to come forth in good faith with information concerning a suspected crime, without fear of repercussions if the information later leads to a wrongful arrest. The rule, however, presupposes that the citizen has stated all material facts within his or her knowledge regarding the alleged crime and has not brought about the indictment by fraud, by suppressing facts, or by other misconduct. Ritch v. Waldrop 428 So.2d 1 (Ala.1982). At trial, Ricky Andrews, who had worked with Hugh Reynolds at Goodyear, testified that Yeager had known weeks before the reported theft that tires were missing from the inventory. Andrews stated that he had informed Yeager of the missing tires and that Yeager had told him not to worry about it. Andrews stated that when the last inventory was taken, two weeks before the reported theft, 40 to 45 tires were missing. Andrews also stated that, on two separate occasions, he had been told to load 20 to 25 tires onto Pannell's truck, supposedly to sell from Pannell's wife's business in DeFuniak Springs, Florida; however, according to Pannell, his wife was not in the business of selling tires. After the reported theft of the tires, Pannell and Yeager filed an insurance claim for the missing tires and later received payment for them. Pannell denied having ever concealed the missing tires at his wife's business or elsewhere; Yeager, whose whereabouts are unknown, did not testify at trial. Nevertheless, a jury could infer from Andrews's testimony that Yeager may have implicated Reynolds in order to conceal his own possible misconduct in relation to the missing tires. Given that we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and must indulge all reasonable inferences that the jury was free to draw, Warren v. Ousley, 440 So.2d 1034 (Ala.1983), we conclude that Reynolds did present sufficient evidence to require a jury determination of whether DAPTS maliciously instigated the criminal proceeding against Reynolds. DAPTS contends that injecting issues of insurance into a tort action is prejudicial and that the trial court thus erred in admitting evidence concerning the insurance claim for the missing tires. We do not agree that the court erred in admitting that evidence. In a tort action based on negligence or wantonness, evidence of liability insurance is generally inadmissible. Otwell v. Bryant, 497 So.2d 111 (Ala.1986). In this case, however, the evidence of insurance was part of the case-in-chief, because Reynolds introduced evidence to establish the theory that Yeager and Pannell, as agents of DAPTS, maliciously instigated proceedings against him as part of a scheme to defraud DAPTS's insurance company. The evidence was necessary to establish the elements of the malicious prosecution claim; accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting it. DAPTS next argues that the damages awarded in favor of Reynolds as to count one were not supported by the evidence. We disagree. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Reynolds for $10,000 on that count. DAPTS contends that the jury verdict was not supported by the evidence. Jury verdicts are presumed to be correct. Eubanks v. Hall, 628 So.2d 773 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), citing Uphaus v. Charter Hospital of Mobile, 582 So.2d 1140 (Ala.Civ. App.1991). This presumption is strengthened when the trial court denies a motion for a new trial. First Alabama Bank of South Baldwin v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of America, 619 So.2d 1313 (Ala.1993). This presumption of correctness is so strong that this Court will not reverse a judgment based on a jury verdict unless, after allowing all reasonable presumptions of correctness, the preponderance of the evidence is against the verdict and is so decided as to clearly convince this Court that the verdict is wrong. Delchamps, Inc. v. Larry, 613 So.2d 1235 (Ala.1992). The record shows that Reynolds incurred expenses for posting bond and incurred other out-of-pocket expenses; this fact supports an award for actual damages. Additionally, the trial court instructed the jury that it could award punitive damages if it found that DAPTS consciously or deliberately instigated the prosecution. The jury found the requisite element of malice and awarded damages accordingly. In light of the strong presumption of correctness that attaches to a jury verdict and the evidence in support of this verdict, we conclude that this verdict is not plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust.