EMC Insurance Companies v. Entergy Arkansas

Filing 49

ORDER granting defendant's oral motion for judgment as a matter of law at the end of presentation of the plaintiff's evidence during jury trial; ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on May 18, 2018. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
EMC INSURANCE COMPANIES

v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 1:16-cv-1025

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Defendant Entergy
Arkansas, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff EMC Insurance Companies (“Plaintiff”) initiated this
subrogation action against Defendant on April 5, 2016. A jury trial was held in this matter on May
8, 2018, with the undersigned presiding. At the conclusion of Plaintiff’s presentation of evidence,
Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiff’s subrogation claim prior to
submission of the case to the jury. After a review of the evidence presented at trial and the
arguments of counsel, the Court finds as follows.
The standard for granting judgment as a matter of law is governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 50. Rule 50(a)(1) provides as follows:
If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that
a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for
the party on that issue, the court may:
(A) resolve the issue against the party; and
(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim
or defense that, under the controlling law, can be manifested or defeated
only with a favorable finding on that issue.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). The Eighth Circuit has explained that “[j]udgment as a matter of law is
appropriate only when all of the evidence points one way and is ‘susceptible of no reasonable

inference sustaining the position of the nonmoving party.’” Howard v. Mo. Bone & Joint Ctr.,
Inc., 615 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Keenan v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 13 F.3d
1266, 1269 (8th Cir. 1994)). “In deciding a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court shall
(1) resolve direct factual conflicts in favor of the nonmovant, (2) assume as true all facts supporting
the nonmovant which the evidence tended to prove, (3) give the nonmovant the benefit of all
reasonable inferences, and (4) deny the motion if the evidence so viewed would allow reasonable
jurors to differ as to the conclusions that could be drawn.” Stults v. Am. Pop Corn Co., 815 F.3d
409, 418 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Jones v. Edwards, 770 F.2d 739, 740 (8th Cir.1985)).
At the conclusion of Plaintiff’s evidence, Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of
law on the basis that Plaintiff had failed to present evidence demonstrating that its insureds had
been made whole. In light of the evidence presented at trial, and with all reasonable inferences
made in favor to Plaintiff, the Court agrees that there is no legally sufficient evidence that would
allow reasonable jurors to find for Plaintiff on its subrogation claim. Specifically, the Court finds
that Plaintiff cannot exercise its right of subrogation as it failed to present evidence at trial
establishing that its insureds had been made whole, pursuant to the Arkansas made-whole doctrine,
prior to the initiation of this action.
“The made-whole doctrine is a descriptive term for assuring against unjust enrichment of
the insureds.” Riley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 381 S.W.3d 840, 848 (Ark. 2011) (citing
S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tallant, 207 S.W.3d 468, 472 (Ark. 2005)). Under the madewhole doctrine, “[a]n insured should not recover more than that which fully compensates, and an
insurer should not recover any payments that should rightfully go to the insured so that he or she
is fully compensated.” Id. “The general rule is that an insurer is not entitled to subrogation unless
the insured has been made whole for his loss.” Id. “Absent an agreement or settlement between

2

the parties, an insurer’s right to subrogation does not accrue until there has been a legal
determination by a court that the insured has been made whole.” Id.
In the present case, although Plaintiff presented evidence demonstrating that it paid out
settlement proceeds to its insureds, it failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had
been made whole by the settlement prior to initiating this subrogation action. Thus, the Court finds
that Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue its subrogation claim against Defendant in this
action. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
should be and hereby is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of May, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

3