The final verdict is not necessarily the end of an insurance dispute. That is exactly what we are seeing now after the jury returned a very large business interruption verdict in excess of $80 million against the insurers in the JW Aluminum case. The insurers have filed post-trial motions asking the court to set aside the verdict, order a new trial, or substantially reduce the judgment. 1

This is not unusual. In fact, it is almost automatic after a large policyholder win.

The insurers’ primary argument is simple: the jury got it wrong. They claim that no reasonable jury could have reached this verdict based on the evidence. According to the insurers, the business interruption damages were speculative, untethered from reality, and driven more by emotion than proof. They argue that the policyholder failed to establish that it could legally operate its equipment during the claimed loss period and failed to prove lost profits with the level of certainty the law requires.

In other words, the insurers are saying the jury should never have been allowed to award what it did, and the judge should now step in and fix it.

The insurers also attack the legal framework the jury was given. They argue that the court applied the wrong legal standards, particularly concerning replacement cost coverage and the so-called prevention doctrine. According to the insurers, the jury was asked the wrong questions and allowed to find liability without the required findings, such as intent. They say those errors alone justify a new trial or an amended judgment.

There is also a familiar subtext running through the motions: the verdict was too big to be right. The insurers point to the size of the award as evidence that passion, prejudice, or sympathy influenced the jury. That theme shows up frequently in post-trial motions after a policyholder wins a large case. Juries are accused of punishing insurers rather than applying the law, and judges are urged to step in as the last line of defense.

None of this should surprise anyone who has tried large insurance cases. However, I sometimes think people fail to say that post-trial motions and then appeals occur more often than not when the result is a large payment.

Post-trial motions like these are standard operating procedure. Insurers would be criticized internally if they did not file them.  Somebody has to explain why the loss happened. Even when the chances of success are slim, these motions preserve issues for appeal and sometimes persuade trial judges to trim verdicts or order new trials.

What happens next is also predictable. The trial judge will rule on the motions. If the verdict survives intact or largely intact, an appeal is almost certain. Appeals are common after large verdicts. Insurers often believe appellate courts will be more receptive to technical arguments about evidence, jury instructions, and damages methodology.

For policyholders, this phase requires patience. A jury verdict is a major milestone, but it is rarely the end of the road. Post-trial motions and appeals are part of the terrain, particularly when business interruption losses reach nine figures.

The real lesson is not that the verdict is fragile, but that insurers fight hardest when the stakes are highest. Big verdicts invite big legal battles. That is not a flaw in the system. It is simply how insurance litigation works.

I previously wrote about a large verdict being overturned earlier this year in When the Jury’s Word Doesn’t Stand: Trial Court Overturns Brotherhood Mutual Bad Faith Verdict. So, one cannot just say that insurance companies always lose these motions and are filing them for delay.

I will keep readers abreast of developments in this case and provide a more detailed discussion of the issues presented in this fire-related business interruption lawsuit.

Thought For The Day

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” 
— Martin Luther King Jr.

1 JW Aluminum Co. v. ACE American Ins. Co., No. 2:21-CV-1034 (D. S.C.) (See, Defendants’ Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial or to Amend the Judgment Regarding the Prevention Doctrine and Award of Replacement Cost Value, and Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict on Plaintiff’s Cast Coil Claim).