Wilson et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Filing
63
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AS TO JOHNNIE WILSON [ECF NO. 49] Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHNNIE WILSON, DWIGHT WILSON,
HASSAN TURNER, C.S., Z.S., N.S. and A.S
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:17-cv-11243
Hon: AVERN COHN
-vsSTATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AS TO JOHNNIE
WILSON (ECF NO. 49)
I.
INTRODUCTION
This is an insurance case. Plaintiff Johnnie Wilson is suing State Farm for
denying his claim for insurance coverage for the loss suffered after a fire at his home.
Wilson was the named insured on the policy.
Before trial, Wilson moved to exclude evidence of his poverty. The Court
declined and “indicated it would review the issue if the issue was pertinent after the
jury’s verdict.” (ECF No. 49, PageID. 462). The jury unanimously found that Wilson had
a wrongful connection to the fire. (ECF No. 44). Now before the Court is Wilson’s motion
for a new trial. (ECF No. 49). For the reasons that follow, Wilson’s motion is DENIED.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) provides that following a jury verdict, the court may grant a
new trial “for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in
actions at law in the courts of the United States.” In Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan,
311 U.S. 243 (1940), the Supreme Court held that a, “motion for new trial may invoke
the discretion of the court in so far as it is bottomed on the claim that the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence, that the damages are excessive, or that, for other
reasons, the trial was not fair to the moving party.”
III.
ANALYSIS
Wilson argues a new trial is warranted because the jury improperly heard evidence
of his poverty and that the only evidence connecting him to the fire was the hole in the
roof of the home. (ECF No. 49).
State Farm argues it properly introduced evidence of Wilson’s declining financial
condition as evidence of motive to set the fire. Further, State Farm says the evidence of
the hole was one piece of evidence connecting Wilson to the fire and evidence of his
deteriorating financial condition was another.
In People v. Henderson, 408 Mich. 56, 66 (1980), the Michigan Supreme Court
discussed when it is permissible to introduce evidence of poverty, finding that evidence
of poverty is not ordinarily admissible to show motive given the low probative value but
high prejudicial impact. “There is a risk that it will cause jurors to view a defendant as a
“bad man” a poor provider, a worthless individual.” Id. Other evidence of financial
condition may, however, be admissible in the circumstance of a particular case. The
court distinguished evidence of poverty showing that a person is chronically short of
2
funds and evidence showing that a person is experiencing a shortage of funds that is
out of the ordinary, finding that the latter is admissible to show motive. Id.
Wilson relies heavily on Smith v. Michigan Basic Prop. Ins. Ass'n, 441 Mich. 181,
195, 490 (1992) to argue any evidence of Wilson’s poverty or financial condition should
be excluded. In Smith, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that
evidence of the Smiths’ financial condition should not be admitted. The Court cited
Henderson, supra, to say that the insurer was using evidence of financial condition
improperly, stating “[the insurance company] made no effort to show that there had
been a deterioration in the Smiths' financial condition. During the argument on the
motion, the Smiths' lawyer stated without objection that the “facts are undisputed that
my clients, while not having high income also were not behind on any of their bills, were
not in financial distress, were not under any pressure from any creditors or anyone else
to pay money. But merely, they're poor people.” Id.
Here, State Farm properly admitted evidence showing that in the months leading
up to the fire, Wilson’s financial condition continued to deteriorate. It was that
deterioration, coupled with the fact that the home was insured for much more than it
was worth on the market, that provided Wilson with the motive to collect insurance
proceeds through arson. (ECF No. 51-2; PageID.515).
State Farm’s evidence of Wilson’s declining financial state was as follows:
State Farm paid Wilson approximately $21,000.00 in 2015 in connection
with a roof damage claim, which he claims his public insurance adjuster
stole. At the time of the fire, the roof had still not been repaired.
Wilson had stopped paying his water bill in November 2015, five months
before the fire. Each month thereafter, through the date of the fire, Wilson
had not made any payments toward the water bill, resulting in a balance
3
due on the date of the fire of $1,468.61, including $1,273.25 that was
“past due.”
2015 was the first year that Wilson failed to pay the property taxes owed
for the property, and that those taxes were past due at the time of the fire.
At the time of the fire, Wilson was allegedly receiving income through
social security payments, the money/rent he allegedly received (though
the testimony was inconsistent) from his son and brother, as well as the
money he received each month from his former attorney.
(ECF No. 55). State Farm provided sufficient evidence to show Wilson’s declining
financial state leading up to the time of the fire. There is no indication that the evidence
was used simply to show Wilson was poor.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Wilson’s motion for a new trial is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 21, 2019
4
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?