Unicare, Inc. v. Felicia Peoples Hood

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the trial court erred by denying Unicare's post-judgment motion for a remittitur without stating reasons and by failing to conduct a requested hearing under Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P. The court remanded for a hearing addressing the damages challenge and allegations concerning jurors' voir dire responses, including whether Unicare was probably prejudiced. The reporter's note states that the appeal was later dismissed on the appellant's motion.

Holdings

1. When a party requests a hearing under Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P., the trial court must provide the parties an opportunity to be heard before ruling on the post-trial motion. The trial court erred by denying Unicare's motion without holding the requested hearing.
2. A trial court must state the reasons supporting its denial of a motion for remittitur. Because the trial court denied Unicare's remittitur motion without such a statement, the case had to be remanded for entry of an order complying with that requirement.
3. When a motion for new trial alleges improper responses or a lack of responses by veniremembers during voir dire, the trial court must inquire whether the movant was probably prejudiced. If probable prejudice resulted, the motion for new trial must be granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Unicare's post-judgment motion without holding the hearing requested under Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying the motion for remittitur without stating the reasons for the denial.
3. What procedure the trial court must follow on remand in addressing the allegations that two jurors failed to disclose prior representation by Hood's counsel.

Disposition

remanded