Court Opinion

ID: 9508248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:29:36.367419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:29.921063
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE WEBER,
separately concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion with the exception that I do not agree with all of the statements regarding whether the District Court should have granted separate trials on the contract and tort issues as set forth in Part II. I do agree that separate trials are not appropriate as stated in the last paragraph of Part II.
As pointed out in the majority opinion, all of the parties, including the counsel for FIG, assumed that Judge Henson had entered an order denying bifurcation. This mistaken assumption continued past the time when Judge McPhillips denied a new trial after trial on the merits and post trial motions. It was not until this appeal that FIG raised the issue that Judge Henson in fact had not ruled against bifurcation. I agree with the majority conclusion that FIG may not put Judge McPhillips in error on a point not brought to his attention and not raised prior to the time of this appeal. I therefore join in the conclusion that it would not be proper for this court to remand for separate trials.
MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON and the HONORABLE ROBERT M. HOLTER, District Judge, sitting for MR. JUSTICE HARRISON, join in the special concurrence of MR. JUSTICE WEBER.