Jaroslaw Waskowski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Alan E. Norris, Circuit Judge; Eric L. Clay, Circuit Judge and Raymond M. Kethledge, Circuit Judge.

Case: 13-1706

Document: 49-2

Filed: 06/26/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0461n.06

FILED

No. 13-1706
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JAROSLAW WASKOWSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Jun 26, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
MEMORANDUM
OPINION

BEFORE: NORRIS, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waskowski was involved in a car accident, and sued
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in Michigan state court after State Farm
terminated his benefits. State Farm removed the action to federal court where, after a five-day
trial, the jury returned a verdict that Waskowski was in fact injured in the car accident, but that
State Farm owed no additional benefits beyond the amount it had already paid. Waskowski
appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to amend the judgment to add damages or, in the
alternative, his motion for a new trial on damages.
The panel has had the opportunity to consider the arguments advanced by the parties and
to conduct our own independent review of the record on appeal. In this case, the district court
issued an Opinion and Order which explains in detail the analysis behind the court’s denial of
plaintiff’s motions. Waskowski v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 11-CV-13036, 2013 WL

Case: 13-1706

Document: 49-2

Filed: 06/26/2014

Page: 2

Waskowski v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.
No. 13-1706

1774696 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 25, 2013) (Page ID 1636). We agree with the reasoning of the district
court and affirm on that basis.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.