Opinion ID: 1880698
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Farm Bureau's handling of the claim, and the Trial Court's Denial of a J.N.O.V. or a New Trial

Text: ¶ 27. At trial, Mrs. Owens claimed that Farm Bureau negligently handled her claim and failed to adequately explain UM coverage to Mr. Owens, as required by this Court's holding in Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Berry, 669 So.2d 56 (Miss.1996). These claims were submitted to the jury which rendered a verdict in favor of Farm Bureau. ¶ 28. On appeal, Mrs. Owens does not specify what error she alleges the trial court committed with regard to her claims against Farm Bureau and the jury verdict in its favor. In her CONCLUSION she states, Farm Bureau's treatment of Appellant and her husband at trial is [sic] outrageous and should not be condoned by this Court. We take this to be a claim that the jury verdict was the product of bias, passion or prejudice. She also characterizes several positions taken by Farm Bureau as ludicrous. We interpret her language to be a claim that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, [4] and the trial court should have granted her JNOV motion. A careful review of Mrs. Owens's brief unearths no other language which we are able to interpret as a possible assignment of error. ¶ 29. The standard of review for a denial of a JNOV and a denial of a directed verdict are the same. Under this standard, this Court must: consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the [non-moving party], giving that party the benefit of all favorable inference that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. If the facts so considered point so overwhelmingly in favor of the [moving party] that reasonable [jurors] could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, [we are] required to reverse and render. On the other hand if there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, affirmance is required. 3M Co. v. Johnson, 895 So.2d 151, 160 (Miss.2005) (quoting Munford, Inc. v. Fleming, 597 So.2d 1282, 1284 (Miss. 1992)). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Farm Bureau, this Court must determine whether the facts are nevertheless so overwhelmingly in favor of Mrs. Owens that reasonable jurors could not have found in favor of Farm Bureau. ¶ 30. Additionally, [t]his Court will reverse a trial judge's denial of a request for new trial only when such denial amounts to a abuse of that judge's discretion. Steele v. Inn of Vicksburg, Inc., 697 So.2d 373, 376 (Miss.1997) (citing Shields v. Easterling, 676 So.2d 293, 298 (Miss.1996)).