In Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. BMW of N. Am., 22-391-cv (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2023) the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of BMW’s Rule 50 Motion and upholding the jury verdict. In February 2022, U.S. District Judge David Larimer upheld a jury’s $872,000 verdict against BMW of North America with the case centering on allegations that a raging house fire started after a 2011 BMW self-ignited in the garage of the plaintiff insurance carrier’s insured home. The Court also added over $500,000 in prejudgment interest for a total Judgment in the amount of $ 1,381,283.39 which does not include post judgment interest.
The Court stated: “At trial, Plaintiff-Appellee Amica Mutual Insurance Company (“Amica”) prevailed on its product liability claims after the jury found for Amica on the single question the parties stipulated to submit to the jury: whether the ’cause and origin of the fire was in the right front passenger side of the BMW vehicle.’ Joint App’x at 3132. On appeal, Defendant-Appellant BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW”) contends that: (1) Amica failed to adduce sufficient evidence to rule out BMW’s proffered alternative cause of the fire; and, as a result, (2) Amica was required to, and did not, adduce direct evidence of a specific manufacturing defect in the vehicle.?
The Court went on to state: “BMW stipulated that a jury finding that the ’cause and origin of the fire was in the right front passenger side of the BMW vehicle’ would, alone, result in entry of judgment in Amica’s favor. It cannot now seek reversal on the grounds that Amica failed to adequately prove a fact that BMW stipulated out of the case. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and arguments on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision.