Endsley v. Geotechnical Env't Consultants Inc.

Because the jury found defendants not liable and never reached the issue of damages, the trial court's errors in not bifurcating the personal injury trial after allowing insurer to intervene in the case, in instructing the jury that insurer had paid benefits to plaintiff and had done so as a result of a wreck and in instructing the jury that insurer's workers' compensation lien was evidence about the presence or absence of insurance or benefits were harmless.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Mildred Endsley appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion for new trial following its entry of judgment on a jury’s verdict in favor of Geotechnical Environmental Consultants, Inc. GEC and Patricia Mason collectively, appellees in Endsley’s personal-injury suit, in which United Health Group UHG intervened to seek reimbursement for workers’ compensation benefits that UHG paid to Endsley. On appeal, Endsley contends that the trial court erred in 1 denying her request to bifurcate the trial; and 2 after a stipulation was reached between Endsley and UHG as to a monetary amount, instructing the jury that UHG had paid benefits to Endsley and had done so as a result of a wreck, as well as instructing the jury that UHG’s workers’ compensation lien was evidence about the presence or absence of insurance or benefits. Endsley contends that, because of the foregoing errors, the trial court should not have entered judgment on the jury’s verdict or should have granted her motion for new trial. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm.

The undisputed underlying facts show that in 2008, Endsley was involved in a motor-vehicle accident with Mason while both were acting within the scope of their respective jobs. Mason collided with the rear of Endsley’s vehicle, and both Mason and her employer, Geotechnical Environmental Consultants, Inc., admitted to their negligence and/or vicarious liability. However, what was disputed at trial was the proximate cause of Endsley’s alleged injuries, which Mason and GEC argued were the result of a pre-existing condition at the time of the collision.

Endsley v. Geotechnical Env't Consultants Inc.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report