Thursday, September 30, 2010

Court Reviews Whether Plaintiff Should be Allowed to Reopen Proof in a Motor Vehicle Accident Case

WILLIAM J. REINHART v. GEICO INSURANCE (Tenn. Ct. App. September 30, 2010)

The plaintiff owned a 1988 Porsche that was damaged by a collision with a deer. His insurer offered him $6,000 under his policy, after determining that the cost of repair was greater than the cash value of the car. The plaintiff, acting pro se, sued the insurer, and attempted to prove at trial that the auto was worth more than the insurer offered. After the plaintiff rested his case, the insurer moved for a directed verdict because the plaintiff had not introduced the insurance policy into evidence. The trial court granted the motion.

The plaintiff argues on appeal that he did not intend to rest his case and that in any event the trial court should have allowed him to reopen his proof so he could introduce the insurance policy. Because there is neither a transcript of the proceedings nor a Rule 24 Statement of the Evidence in the appellate record, we must affirm the trial court.

Opinion available at:

No comments:

Post a Comment