Haywood v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
JUDGMENT is entered in favor of State Farm. Ms. Haywood's claim against State Farm is dismissed with prejudice; her request for relief from State Farm is denied. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/10/2017. (mef)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Case No. 5:16-cv-336-KGB
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
This matter came for trial by jury on the 7th day of August, 2017. A jury of twelve was
selected and sworn. On August 7, 2017, the jury returned a verdict as follows:
We, the jury, find that Sharonda Haywood has proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that she sustained damages as a proximate cause of Glenn Barnes’s negligence on September 8,
2015, in the amount of:
/s/ James V. Keller
August 7, 2017
As a result of the jury’s verdict, judgment in this case is entered in favor of defendant State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) and against plaintiff Sharonda
Haywood. Ms. Haywood recovers nothing on her claim against State Farm. Her request for relief
is denied, and her claim against State Farm is dismissed with prejudice.
This is an underinsured motorist action filed by Ms. Haywood against her automobile
insurance company, State Farm. Ms. Haywood claimed that she was injured in a motor vehicle
accident with a third party, Glenn Barnes, on September 8, 2015. That third party paid to her his
“policy limits” of $25,000.00, and Ms. Haywood made a claim for underinsured motorist benefits
against State Farm. Ms. Haywood alleged that the policy limits paid by the third party’s insurance
company were insufficient to compensate her for the damages she suffered and that she was
entitled to claim additional damages from State Farm.
The jury returned a verdict determining that Ms. Haywood proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that she sustained damages as a proximate cause of the third party’s negligence in the
September 8, 2015, accident in the total amount of $25,000.00, meaning the policy limits paid by
the third party’s insurance company were sufficient to compensate her for the damages she suffered
and that Ms. Haywood is entitled to no recovery for underinsured motorist benefits from State
Judgment is entered in favor of State Farm. Ms. Haywood’s claim against State Farm is
dismissed with prejudice; her request for relief from State Farm is denied.
It is so adjudged this 10th day of August, 2017.
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?