In an action by an insured against an insurance company which denied a claim, plaintiff requested that the trial court give a standard jury instruction explaining that, when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and excluded risks, the loss is covered if the most important or predominant cause is a covered risk. (CACI No. 2306.) Defendant instead proposed a special jury instruction placing on plaintiff the burden of proving the collapse of the house was “caused only by one or more” of the perils listed in the policy, and that there was no coverage if the cause of the collapse involved any peril other than those listed. When the trial court indicated its intention to give part of defendant’s proposed special instruction, plaintiff indicated that giving such an instruction was tantamount to directing a verdict in favor of defendant, because there was no dispute the damage to the house was caused by perils in addition to those listed in the policy. Defendant then moved for a directed verdict on both causes of action. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for retrial, stating: “Because the instruction improperly shifted the burden of proof, the trial court erred in its decision to instruct the jury with defendant’s proposed special instruction and in granting defendant’s motion for directed verdict based on the decision to give that instruction.” There was another issue, however. The trial court had also granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, and plaintiff argued that a reversal of the judgment would automatically vacate the entire judgment, including the directed verdict on the punitive damages claim, and entitle him to a retrial of his claim for punitive damages as if there had been no first trial. Alternatively, he argues there was sufficient evidence that the punitive damages issue should have been left for the jury to decide. The Court of Appeal found no error with regard to the punitive damages issue, and did not order a retrial on that issue. (Vardanyan v. AMCO Ins. Co. (Cal. App. Fifth Dist.; January 7, 2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 779 [197 Cal.Rptr.3d 195].)Retrial Ordered Because Jury Instruction Improperly Shifted The Burden Of Proof.
In an action by an insured against an insurance company which denied a claim, plaintiff requested that the trial court give a standard jury instruction explaining that, when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and excluded risks, the loss is covered if the most important or predominant cause is a covered risk. (CACI No. 2306.) Defendant instead proposed a special jury instruction placing on plaintiff the burden of proving the collapse of the house was “caused only by one or more” of the perils listed in the policy, and that there was no coverage if the cause of the collapse involved any peril other than those listed. When the trial court indicated its intention to give part of defendant’s proposed special instruction, plaintiff indicated that giving such an instruction was tantamount to directing a verdict in favor of defendant, because there was no dispute the damage to the house was caused by perils in addition to those listed in the policy. Defendant then moved for a directed verdict on both causes of action. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for retrial, stating: “Because the instruction improperly shifted the burden of proof, the trial court erred in its decision to instruct the jury with defendant’s proposed special instruction and in granting defendant’s motion for directed verdict based on the decision to give that instruction.” There was another issue, however. The trial court had also granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, and plaintiff argued that a reversal of the judgment would automatically vacate the entire judgment, including the directed verdict on the punitive damages claim, and entitle him to a retrial of his claim for punitive damages as if there had been no first trial. Alternatively, he argues there was sufficient evidence that the punitive damages issue should have been left for the jury to decide. The Court of Appeal found no error with regard to the punitive damages issue, and did not order a retrial on that issue. (Vardanyan v. AMCO Ins. Co. (Cal. App. Fifth Dist.; January 7, 2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 779 [197 Cal.Rptr.3d 195].)