DocketNumber: No. CV-93-0524199-S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3614
Judges: RITTENBAND, J.
Filed Date: 3/13/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
In its motion to Set Aside the Verdict, defendant claims that this court was incorrect in denying his Motion in Limine which would have precluded evidence of the cancellation of the plaintiff's coverage under the policy. Defendant claimed that at most the deletion of the pickup truck and subsequent removal of the plaintiff as a named insured, although the latter occurred after the accident, was merely a modification and not a cancellation of the policy. The court based its ruling on its interpretation of C.G.S. §
Defendant also claims that even if the referenced statute were applicable to this case, the defendant could not be found to have failed its requirements because even failing a notice to the plaintiff of cancellation the defendant would not be liable if the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the cancellation from another source. The court, however, in its charge stated in pertinent part: "At the same, you may also consider whether the plaintiff, Michael Staley, received actual notice of the deletion or cancellation of the coverage of his truck. In doing so, you may take into account the terms of the divorce judgment as to the insurance coverage. Also, he testified that at the time the notice was allegedly sent by Aetna he was no longer living at 14 Celtic Court, and that he had not given any notice to Aetna or to the post office to forward his mail from 14 Celtic Court or a change of address notification to either the post office or to Aetna." The court believes, therefore, that in the charge there, and in the charge taken as a whole, the jury could decide for the CT Page 3616 defendant if it believed that the plaintiff had actual notice. On this issue the court believes that the charge, taken as a whole. was balanced.1
Further, the court stated that Aetna claimed that this was merely a modification or change in the policy, and citing the language in the policy instructed the jury that the change or modification is not effective unless and until an endorsement, which is the same this as sending a new declaration page showing the change, is issued by, Aetna. The court then gave the jury the option to determine whether or not it was only a modification or change by saying "Accordingly, even if you consider this deletion of the vehicle from coverage a modification or change, there is still the requirement that Aetna notify the plaintiff of such change." The charge went on to say "If you find that the plaintiff was not properly notified of the change in the policy or cancellation of his interest as to the Ford truck, then on the issue of liability you must find for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, you find that Aetna did properly notify the plaintiff or that the plaintiff had actual notice of the cancellation or modification and the effective date thereof then you may find for the defendant on the issue of liability." Taking the charge as a whole, the court believes that on these issues the charge was evenly balanced.
Defendant also claims that the recharging or re-reading of the charge on cancellation, which was requested by the jury, the court should also have then repeated the terms of the special defense. All the jury requested was a re-reading of the portion of the charge as to the cancellation. Whether to go beyond what is requested is in the discretion of the trial court.
Finally, the defendant claims that the verdict was contrary to the facts. However, it should be noted that the verdict was a general verdict with no interrogatories on any of the issues discussed or raised in the defendant's motion. "The general verdict rule provides that, where a jury returns a general verdict in favor or a party, and no party submits special interrogatories, an appellate court properly presumes that the jury found in favor of the prevailing party on every issue."O'Briskis v. Supermarkets General Corp.
Finally, "In considering a Motion to Set Aside the Verdict, the court must determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, reasonably supports the jury's verdict." (Internal quotation marks omitted). Childsv. Bainer,
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Set Aside the Verdict is denied.
Rittenband, J.