K.C. Hopps, Ltd. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc.

W.D. Missouri

K.C. Hopps, Ltd. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 18, 2022

Docket4:20-cv-00437

StatusUnknown

This text of K.C. Hopps, Ltd. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc. (K.C. Hopps, Ltd. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

K.C. Hopps, Ltd. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc., (W.D. Mo. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

K.C. HOPPS, LTD., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-00437-SRB ) THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, ) INC., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff K.C. Hopps. Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for a New Trial (Doc. #257) and Post-Trial Motion for Directed Verdict (Doc. #258). For the reasons stated below, the motions are DENIED. “A new trial is appropriate when the first trial, through a verdict against the weight of the evidence . . . or legal errors at trial, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996). “Absent error affecting the substantial rights of the parties . . .a new trial is [not] required.” Hoffmeyer v. Porter, 758 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2014). “A district court has broad discretion when deciding whether to grant a new trial.” Id. at 1067-68. Plaintiff argues a new trial is warranted because of various instructional errors, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, the Court erred in excluding certain evidence, and the foreperson should not have been seated. (Doc. #257, pp. 18-55.) For the reasons stated in Defendant’s opposition brief, and previously by the Court at trial, Plaintiff’s arguments are rejected. The Court finds a new trial is not warranted, and the motion is thus denied. A motion for directed verdict should be granted if “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the” prevailing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). Plaintiff argues it is entitled to a directed verdict regarding Defendant’s exclusions and mitigation of damages affirmative defenses. For the reasons stated by Defendant, and previously by the Court at trial, the motion is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial (Doc. #257) and Post-Trial Motion for Directed Verdict (Doc. #258) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Stephen R. Bough STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: January 18, 2022

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

K.C. HOPPS, LTD., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-00437-SRB ) THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, ) INC., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff K.C. Hopps. Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for a New Trial (Doc. #257) and Post-Trial Motion for Directed Verdict (Doc. #258). For the reasons stated below, the motions are DENIED. “A new trial is appropriate when the first trial, through a verdict against the weight of the evidence . . . or legal errors at trial, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996). “Absent error affecting the substantial rights of the parties . . .a new trial is [not] required.” Hoffmeyer v. Porter, 758 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2014). “A district court has broad discretion when deciding whether to grant a new trial.” Id. at 1067-68. Plaintiff argues a new trial is warranted because of various instructional errors, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, the Court erred in excluding certain evidence, and the foreperson should not have been seated. (Doc. #257, pp. 18-55.) For the reasons stated in Defendant’s opposition brief, and previously by the Court at trial, Plaintiff’s arguments are rejected. The Court finds a new trial is not warranted, and the motion is thus denied. A motion for directed verdict should be granted if “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the” prevailing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). Plaintiff argues it is entitled to a directed verdict regarding Defendant’s exclusions and mitigation of damages affirmative defenses. For the reasons stated by Defendant, and previously by the Court at trial, the motion is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial (Doc. #257) and Post-Trial Motion for Directed Verdict (Doc. #258) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Stephen R. Bough STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: January 18, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

K.C. Hopps, Ltd. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kc-hopps-ltd-v-the-cincinnati-insurance-company-inc-mowd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack