Opinion ID: 2584803
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Denied Lorenz's Motion for a New Trial.

Text: Lorenz moved for a new trial after the jury's verdict. The superior court denied the motion. On appeal Lorenz challenges the jury's finding of causation and its award of compensatory and punitive damages. The question of whether to grant or deny a motion for a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. [23] In reviewing an order denying a new trial, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. [24] [W]e will reject a jury's award of damages and order a new trial only when the evidence supporting the jury's conclusion is `so completely lacking or slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.' [25]
Lorenz argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the fire was the source of the lead that contaminated Maddox's property. She makes two arguments. First, she argues that testing revealed that there was no contamination. Second, she argues that no evidence was presented to actually demonstrate that the fire was the source of any lead particles found on Maddox's property. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Maddox, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Lorenz's motion for a new trial. The jury's determination that Maddox's property was contaminated by lead is adequately supported by the evidence. The sample of ash that Maddox sent out for testing contained in excess of ten percent lead by weight. Initial testing by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services caused the EPA to conclude that the ash on Maddox's property contained lead in levels exceeding state and federal environmental standards. Maddox's expert testified that many samples taken from Maddox's property contained lead in amounts exceeding state and federal standards. While Lorenz argues that later testing by the EPA found that lead was no longer present in levels exceeding the cleanup standards, Maddox's expert directly addressed this later testing and both disputed Lorenz's interpretation of the results and criticized the EPA for using improper testing procedures. Lorenz also argues that blood tests conducted on Maddox and the dogs on his property revealed no elevated levels of lead. But this argument does not address Maddox's argument that his property was contaminated. Maddox never claimed and received no damages for personal injury. Lorenz's second argument  that there was insufficient evidence linking the lead on Maddox's property to the fire  involves a similar inquiry. Many of the samples taken by Maddox and the environmental agencies were of ash. Lorenz does not argue that this ash came from a non-fire source. The state's environmental report suggested that the ash from the fire contained high levels of lead. The state's report also explained that the prevailing wind would have blown this ash in the direction of Maddox's property. Moreover the EPA found elevated levels of lead in soil samples taken from the burn site of each fire. Lorenz argues that Maddox's expert could not rule out other sources of the lead on Maddox's property (she does not suggest what those sources might be) and did not know if Seward's soil naturally contained elevated levels of lead. She also points out that no one conducted a forensic investigation to determine the source of the lead. But these arguments ignore the applicable burden of proof and standard of review and are insufficient to warrant a new trial.
Lorenz argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's award of compensatory damages. She challenges the jury's award of lost earnings for Maddox's dog kennel business on mitigation of damages grounds and the lost property value determination on sufficiency of evidence grounds.
Lorenz argues that Maddox's lost business earnings should be reduced because Maddox did not mitigate his damages. As a result of the fire Maddox closed his dog boarding business for two years, reopening it in January 2004. Lorenz argues that Maddox could have reopened his business less than four months after the fire. Maddox responds that he kept his business closed because the ADEC and EPA told him to leave his property alone so they could assess it and clean it up if it was contaminated. A wronged party's damages award is reduced by that party's failure to mitigate. [26] The reasonableness of a party's mitigation is a question of fact. [27] The jury found that Maddox did not fail to mitigate his damages. Because the jury's mitigation determination is supported by the evidence, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying Lorenz's motion for a new trial. Lorenz's expert testified that the cleanup procedures recommended by the agencies would take two days to implement. But Maddox testified that the ADEC and EPA told him to leave his property alone until they finished their assessments and any necessary cleanup. Given that the EPA was conducting on-site assessments in June 2002, potentially conducted additional assessments after June, and issued its final preliminary assessment report in January 2004, there is evidence that the agencies were conducting an investigation during the two years that Maddox closed his business. The contamination that the agencies were investigating could have reasonably informed Maddox's decision to keep his dog boarding business closed.
Lorenz challenges the jury's assessment of damages for lost property value. The jury awarded Maddox the fair market value of his property  $72,000. Lorenz argues that Maddox did not prove that his property was worthless. Maddox's primary evidence was from an appraiser's post-fire valuation of the property at $72,000. The appraiser worked under the assumption that the property was not contaminated. But the appraiser did state that he thought that if the property was contaminated it would be worth nothing, and may be less. Lorenz contends that this was an unfair method of valuing the property because the appraiser in his appraisal did not treat Maddox's property as if it were contaminated and was hesitant to assume that it was. Maddox responds that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that the property was contaminated and that, given this contamination, the jury could have found that the property was worth nothing. The jury could have reasonably found that Maddox's property is now contaminated. [28] The testimony of Maddox's appraiser suggests that the property would be worthless if it was contaminated. The jury is entitled to combine evidence from multiple sources to reach its determination. Nothing in the record suggests that it was unfair for Maddox to establish the lost value of his property in this manner. Lorenz also argues that Maddox failed to properly establish the value of his property. [29] Maddox testified that his property was worth $72,000 before the fire. Lorenz did not object to this testimony at trial. Maddox and the appraiser provided testimony suggesting the value of Maddox's property after the fire. Alaska allows lay testimony from the owner of property as to the value of the property before and after a damaging event. [30] Maddox has provided enough evidence for this court to determine that the jury's damages award was not so unreasonable and unjust as to require a new trial.
Lorenz argues that her behavior was not egregious enough to trigger the jury's assessment of $500 in punitive damages against her. She notes that the jury found that her actions were not motivated by financial gain and that she did not know of the adverse consequences of the fire. Alaska Statute 09.17.020 governs awards of punitive damages. The statute provides that the plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's conduct (1) was outrageous, including acts done with malice or bad motives; or (2) evidenced reckless indifference to the interest of another person. [31] A showing of malice is not required. It is sufficient to show that the defendant's conduct `amounted to reckless indifference to the rights of others, and conscious action in deliberate disregard of [those rights].' [32] We will reverse a punitive damages award only if consideration of the record as a whole leaves us with a firm conviction of error and the need to intervene to prevent a miscarriage of justice. [33] The jury reasonably could have determined that Lorenz acted with reckless indifference to Maddox's interests. [34] Maddox testified at trial that Lorenz mocked him for raising concerns before she started the first fire. Maddox further testified that the two fires were sizable, that the wind was blowing in the direction of his property, that the fires consumed objects containing lead, that the fires deposited a great deal of ash, and that explosions within the fires threw pieces of metal onto his property. The jury reasonably could have credited Maddox's testimony. Lorenz's arguments are insufficient to upset the jury's determination.