Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Montalvo v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
Citations: 427 P.2d 553; 5 Ariz. App. 419; 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 453Docket: 2 CA-CIV 364
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; May 17, 1967; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Tom and Mary T. Montalvo, the appellants, sought recovery from several insurance companies for a total loss of property due to a fire on January 28, 1965. The insurance companies acknowledged the existence of the insurance contracts and the validity of the loss claims but denied coverage, alleging that Mr. Montalvo intentionally set the fire, thus committing fraud. The jury ruled in favor of the Montalvos, awarding them $32,340.06. The defendants subsequently requested a new trial, arguing that the jury's verdict was unsupported by evidence and biased. The trial judge, Judge Stidham, granted the motion for a new trial without specifying grounds, and after his resignation, Judge Mahoney formalized this order. The Montalvos appealed, claiming that the trial court's failure to detail reasons for the new trial violated Rule 59(m) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, warranting reversal and reinstatement of the jury verdict. The appellees did not respond with a brief by the deadline and instead filed motions, which the court deemed insufficient. Consequently, the court accepted the appellants' motion to submit the case for decision based on their brief and other filed motions. Judge Stidham's affidavit indicates that a new trial was granted because the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Appellees request that the court either amend the new trial order to reflect this ground or, if the court believes it must remand for amendment, to instruct the lower court accordingly. However, both options are unavailable to the appellees, as the first option does not comply with Rule 75(h) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, and the affidavit lacks the necessary detail to meet the "particularity" requirement of Rule 59(m). The court emphasizes that without specific grounds for the new trial, there is a presumption that the jury's verdict was correct, placing the burden on the appellees to demonstrate that the trial court erred in granting a new trial. The appellees failed to meet this burden, and their lack of an answering brief is treated as a confession of reversible error. Consequently, the trial court's order granting a new trial is reversed, with directions to enter judgment based on the jury's verdict in favor of the appellants. All justices concur.