Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment Nothwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED.
Procedural History: This action was filed on April 10, 2013. This case went to trial on February 7, 2017. On February 21, 2017, the jury found in favor of Zenith Insurance Company (“Zenith”) and against Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) in the amount of $3,238,003.86.
Liberty filed its Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (“JNOV”) on March 14, 2017.
On June 9, 2017, this court granted Liberty an offset of $325,000 relating to the Ehrenfeld settlement against the damage award against it, and granted Zenith’s Motion for Prejudgment Interest.
Zenith filed its Opposition to the JNOV on July 11, 2017. Liberty filed its Reply on July 17, 2017.
I. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
“The court, before the expiration of its power to rule on a motion for a new trial, either of its own motion, after five days' notice, or on mo
Hearing Date
July 24, 2017
Type
Breach Contract/Warnty-Negligence (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment Nothwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED.
Procedural History: This action was filed on April 10, 2013. This case went to trial on February 7, 2017. On February 21, 2017, the jury found in favor of Zenith Insurance Company (“Zenith”) and against Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) in the amount of $3,238,003.86.
Liberty filed its Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (“JNOV”) on March 14, 2017.
On June 9, 2017, this court granted Liberty an offset of $325,000 relating to the Ehrenfeld settlement against the damage award against it, and granted Zenith’s Motion for Prejudgment Interest.
Zenith filed its Opposition to the JNOV on July 11, 2017. Liberty filed its Reply on July 17, 2017.
I. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
“The court, before the expiration of its power to rule on a motion for a new trial, either of its own motion, after five days' notice, or on mo