SHIRLEY L. RICHARDSON , Plaintiff - Appell ee , vs. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY , Defendant - Appell ant .
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-582 / 08-0136
Filed November 26, 2008
SHIRLEY L. RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
AMERICAN FAMILY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark J. Smith,
Judge.
Insurer appeals from judgment entered in favor of plaintiff in a suit for
contractual underinsured motorist benefits. AFFIRMED.
Ted J. Wallace, Davenport, for appellant.
M. Tod Melton and Thomas J. Potter of Ludens Potter Burch Melton &
Calvo, Morrison, Illinois, for appellee.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.
2
HUITINK, P.J.
American Family Insurance Company (American Family) appeals from
judgment entered in favor of Shirley Richardson on her suit for contractual
underinsured motorist benefits.
American Family contends the district court
erred in excluding evidence; in restricting its closing arguments; and in submitting
an eggshell plaintiff jury instruction. In addition, it contends it was denied a fair
trial by cumulative errors. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Richardson was involved in a
motor vehicle accident in which she was hit from behind. Following the accident,
Richardson underwent four neck and cervical surgical procedures at the
University of Iowa Hospitals. She sought coverage for these procedures under
her underinsured motorist benefits coverage through American Family.
American Family denied that the surgeries were caused by the motor vehicle
accident. The matter went to trial on the sole issue of whether Richardson’s four
surgeries were proximately caused by the motor vehicle accident.
At trial American Family sought to introduce a disability insurance
application, which had been completed prior to the accident at issue. It also
sought to introduce a medical record from Mayo Clinic from before the accident.
Richardson moved in limine to exclude the items. American Family argued that
other lawsuits and applications for disability were relevant to Richardson’s
motivation for making the instant claim. The district court sustained Richardson’s
objections to the exhibits on grounds they were more prejudicial than probative.
The court did not exclude questioning concerning preexisting conditions or prior
medical complaints. American Family was allowed to question Richardson about
3
the medical matters asserted on the disability application and the Mayo medical
record.
Richardson introduced the testimony of Dr. Vincent Traynelis, the
operating neurosurgeon, who opined that the accident was related to
Richardson’s later neck surgeries. He testified that he based his opinion upon
the patient’s history, i.e., Richardson stated that she had no significant history of
neck problems before the accident. During cross-examination, American Family
asked if Dr. Traynelis was aware of Richardson’s prior treatment for back and
neck issues and how that knowledge would change his opinion. Dr. Traynelis
testified that Richardson had degenerative disk disease that may or may not
have required surgery. However, the accident “acutely created a symptomatic
situation out of one that was relatively asymptomatic.”
American Family introduced the testimony of Dr. Thomas Carlstrom, also
a neurosurgeon, who had examined Richardson’s medical history and
documentations. Dr. Carlstrom noted that Richardson had an extensive history
of both neck and low back pain prior to the accident. He stated that Richardson
had sustained a muscular injury in the accident. He opined that the surgery
performed on Richardson was not necessary for her complaints from the
automobile accident and that it was “not a good operation for getting rid of neck
pain, [it] doesn’t usually work.”
After Richardson had finished testifying, American Family sought to
introduce into evidence one of Richardson’s interrogatory answers and to read
into the record portions of Richardson’s prior deposition. The district court ruled
that it would allow American Family to recall Richardson and question her about
4
the contents of the interrogatory and the deposition, but it would not allow the
items to be introduced in the manner proposed by American Family. American
Family did then recall Richardson and further question her concerning prior
history of neck and back pain and treatment.
The district court informed the parties it intended to offer the eggshell
plaintiff instruction “because Dr. Traynelis did testify that this accident made her
degenerative disk disease become symptomatic.” American Family objected,
arguing that the instruction was improper since it had not been allowed to
introduce evidence of her prior disability. The court overruled the objection.
Just before closing arguments, Richardson asked the district court to limit
American Family’s closing arguments. Richardson asked that American Family
not be allowed to argue that the surgeries were not needed.
I think that he’s limited to arguing that it did not – that it wasn’t – the
surgeries weren’t caused by the accident. They weren’t related to
the accident. I don’t think he can get into the need for the surgery.
That’s not a defense to causation. It’s a defense to damages. And
if he’s intending to go there, which I would have never dreamed that
he would until we had the directed verdict motion yesterday, I want
to stop it before it’s said rather than interrupt him during his closing
argument.
American Family argued that the issue was introduced by Dr. Carlstrom’s
testimony that came in without objections and that “I believe the position that they
should never have occurred is, in fact, a statement that they are not related to the
accident.” The court commented: “But the question is whether or not, given the
limited scope that the jury is deciding here, whether that’s relevant evidence to
whether or not the injury–not the surgery–the injury was proximately caused by
the accident.” After further discussion, the court granted Richardson’s motion
5
limiting American Family’s closing argument.
Closing arguments were not
reported.
The jury returned a verdict with a special interrogatory finding that “the
medical treatment provided to the Plaintiff at the University of Iowa was
proximately caused by the automobile accident of January 30, 2003.”
American Family’s motion for new trial was denied.
American Family
appeals.
II. Evidentiary Rulings.
American Family contends the district court
erred in excluding evidence, including the disability insurance application, which
it claims was relevant and probative of Richardson’s motives. It argues that the
actual disability application, and not just the information contained therein, was
direct evidence that the plaintiff was aware of her neck injury prior to the
accident, contrary to her testimony at trial.
We review the district court's determination of relevancy and admission of
relevant evidence for an abuse of discretion. Graber v. City of Ankeny, 616
N.W.2d 633, 638 (Iowa 2000). An abuse of discretion exists when “the court
exercised [its] discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an
extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Maghee, 573 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 1997).
In Nepple v. Weifenbach, 274 N.W.2d 728, 733-34 (Iowa 1979), our
supreme court held it is the duty of trial courts, upon timely objection, to prevent
the introduction of evidence regarding unrelated prior claims because such
evidence can be very distracting and improperly impugn the merits of the case
being tried.
The court noted that “litigiousness, in the eyes of most people,
reflects upon character and that hostility is ordinarily felt against one who
6
constantly requires services of a court of law for the adjustment of life’s
problems.” Nepple, 274 N.W.2d at 733 (internal quotation and citation omitted);
see also Mohammed v. Otoadese, 738 N.W.2d 628, 632 (Iowa 2007) (noting that
even if somehow relevant, evidence of a prior lawsuit “should have been
excluded under rule 5.403”).
Here, the district court properly performed its duty enunciated in Nepple:
that is, upon timely objection, the court prevented the introduction of evidence
regarding unrelated prior claims for disability because such evidence can be very
distracting and improperly impugn the merits of the case being tried. We find no
error.
III.
Limiting Closing Argument.
American Family next argues the
district court denied its fair comment on the evidence in the record in disallowing
argument that if the surgeries themselves were unnecessary for her neck
complaints; they cannot be proximately caused by the accident. We first note
that we have no way to review the arguments actually made. Therefore, we
confine ourselves to the narrow question of whether the trial court erred in ruling
that American Family’s closing arguments would be limited to the scope of the
question presented to the jury.
The scope of closing arguments rests largely with the sound discretion of
the trial court. Lane v. Coe College, 581 N.W.2d 214, 218 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998).
We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining American
Family’s closing argument should address whether or not the surgery was
proximately caused by the accident.
7
IV. Jury Instruction. American Family complains that the district court
improperly instructed the jury. Specifically, it contends Instruction No. 7 should
not have been given. The instruction reads:
If Shirley Richardson had a pre-existing spinal condition making her
more susceptible to injury than a person of normal health, then the
defendant is responsible for all injuries and damages which are
experienced by Shirley Richardson proximately caused by the
motor vehicle collision, even though the injuries claimed produce a
greater injury than those which might have been experienced by a
normal person under the same circumstances.
American Family argues that the instruction is not proper where, as here, the
sole question to the jury was one of proximate cause.
The supreme court rejected this argument in Benn v. Thomas, K-G, Ltd.,
512 N.W.2d 537, 539 (Iowa 1994).
Defendant contends that plaintiff’s proposed instruction was
inappropriate because it concerned damages, not proximate cause.
Although the eggshell plaintiff rule has been incorporated into the
Damages section of the Iowa Uniform Jury Instructions, we believe
it is equally a rule of proximate cause.
The district court did not err in submitting the eggshell plaintiff instruction to the
jury.
V. Cumulative Error. We have reviewed the remainder of American
Family’s claims of error and, whether specifically addressed or not, find them to
be without merit. The district court has the duty and the responsibility to exercise
reasonable control over the mode and order of a trial. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.611.
The district court acted within its discretion in requiring defendant to question the
plaintiff about the contents of the affidavit and deposition, rather than allowing
defendant to simply read them into the record.
8
Summary.
The district court did not err in excluding evidence of
Richardson’s prior claims for benefits.
The court did not unduly restrict
defendant’s closing arguments. The court properly submitted an eggshell plaintiff
jury instruction on the matter of proximate causation. American Family was not
denied a fair trial. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
