Hall, K. v. Erie Insurance

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 8, 2021
• Docket: 822 WDA 2020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A09025-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

KRISTI HALL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE : No. 822 WDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 26, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Civil Division at No(s): No. 3563 of 2017

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: JULY 8, 2021

In this underinsured motorist case, Kristi Hall appeals from the

judgment entered in her favor in the amount of $18,724.46 following a jury

trial and denial of her motion for a new trial. Upon review, we affirm.

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on

January 24, 2016, in which Hall was rear ended by Robert Ames. At the time

of the accident, Hall had a limited tort insurance policy with Erie. Based on

her claim that the tortfeasor’s insurance was inadequate to compensate her

for her losses, Hall filed an underinsured motorist claim against Erie.

At trial, the jury was required to consider economic damages, existence

of a serious impairment of bodily function, and non-economic damages. The

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A09025-21

trial court detailed the evidence presented on these issues in its opinion. See

Trial Court Opinion, 7/21/20.

The jury returned a verdict awarding Hall $18,724.46 in economic

damages - $5,724.46 for medical expenses she already incurred and $13,000

in lost wages. However, the jury concluded that Hall did not need future

medical care as a result of the accident and, therefore, did not award her

damages for future medical expenses. Additionally, the jury did not find that

Hall sustained serious impairment of a bodily function as a result of the

accident, and therefore did not award her any non-economic damages.

Hall filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial on the basis that the

jury’s verdict as to damages for future medical care and expenses was against

the weight of the evidence. Hall also claimed that the jury’s verdict as to

whether she suffered serious impairment of bodily function, and thus was

entitled to non-economic damages, was against the weight of the evidence.

The trial court denied Hall’s motion.

Hall filed this timely appeal. Hall raises two issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying [Hall’s] post-trial motion for new trial when the jury’s verdict as to future medical expenses was against the weight of the evidence and was so contrary to the evidence that it shocked one’s sense of justice.

2. Whether the trial court erred in denying [Hall’s] post-trial motion for new trial when the jury’s verdict as to the serious injury question was against the weight of the evidence and was so contrary to the evidence that it shocked one’s sense of justice.

Hall’s Brief at 6.

-2- J-A09025-21

Our standard of review for claims implicating the weight of the evidence

is well-settled.

Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the [trial court's] exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court's determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court's conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.

In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485, 490 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing

Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (2013)). The trial court may

award a new trial “only when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence

as to shock one's sense of justice. In determining whether this standard has

been met, appellate review is limited to whether the trial judge's discretion

was properly exercised, and relief will only be granted where the facts and

inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of discretion.” Samuel–

Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 34 A.3d 1, 39 (Pa. 2011) (citing

Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025, 1035–36 (Pa. 2007)).

Moreover, in weighing the evidence, “[t]he factfinder is free to believe all,

part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the

witnesses.” Id.

Hall claims that the trial court erred in denying her claim that the verdict

was against the weight of the evidence as to whether she needed future

-3- J-A09025-21

medical treatment. Hall’s Brief at 17. Additionally, she claims that the trial

court erred in denying her claim that the jury’s verdict was against the weight

of the evidence as to whether she sustained a serious impairment of bodily

injury entitling her to an award for non-economic damages. Id. at 21. We

decide both issues simultaneously.

Here, the trial court concluded that, after considering the evidence in

this case, the jury’s decision did not shock one’s sense of justice. In its opinion

denying Halls’ post-trial motion, the trial court detailed the factual basis in the

record to support the jury’s decision that Hall did not need future medical care,

and that she did not incur a serious impairment of bodily injury as a result of

the accident. Trial Court Opinion, 7/21/20, at 2-6. Conflicting evidence,

including expert testimony, was presented on both of these issues. The trial

court properly observed that the jury was responsible for resolving any conflict

in the evidence regarding future medical treatment and serious impairment of

bodily function. Id. at 4, 6. The jury is permitted to accept all, part, or none

of the evidence presented; credibility determinations are for the jury. Id. at

4. Furthermore, as the trial court recognized, a mere conflict in the evidence

or that the court would have arrived at a different result based on the same

evidence, does not warrant a new trial. See id. at 2.

Based upon our review of the record, the trial court’s thorough

consideration of the same, and its sound rationale, we discern no abuse of

discretion in the trial court’s denial of Hall’s weight of the evidence claims and

request for a new trial.

-4- J-A09025-21

Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/8/2021

-5-