The Doctrines of Remittitur and Additur have been well-establish principles in New Jersey law since 1917; allowing a court to either reduce (remittitur) or increase (additur) an award for damages which it found to have “shocked the judicial conscience” based on the evidence presented at trial.
In a recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, Orientale v. Jennings, __ N.J. __ (2019), the Court altered the remittitur and additur principles, shifting the perceptions of a bias towards a plaintiff or defendant. The Court held when a jury’s award for damages is grossly excessive or utterly inadequate, a new trial for damages should be afforded to the parties; however, the Court converted remittitur and additur to be alternatives so long as both parties consent to a court fixing a specific damages award that a reasonable jury would have awarded.
In Orientale, the plaintiff settled her underlying claim for injuries sustained in a car accident for $100,000. Plaintiff maintained an underinsured motorist policy through Allstate, covering up to $250,000. Plaintiff asserted a claim against Allstate for injuries exceeding the settlement. After trial, a jury returned a verdict of $200 against Allstate but since it did not exceed the settlement, the judge entered a no-cause verdict. Finding the verdict utterly inadequate the court, under additur, raised it to $47,500, which was the lowest award proven during trial; nevertheless, the altered amount still resulted in a no-cause verdict in favor of Allstate. The Court granted review of the remittitur and additur, reviewing the law from early common law where additur did not exist and remittitur did not resemble the principles of today, through today’s current laws. The Court found the current use of remittitur and additur were incongruent with the principles of Rule 4:35-1(a) which allows a party to send any triable issues to a jury unless all parties consent to a bench trial. The Court preserved the principles of remittitur and additur by altering them into a choice where both parties must consent to the alteration, whether an increase or a reduction, for it to be binding.
The Court provided that trial courts when determining the proper amount for remittitur or additur of a verdict that shocks the judicial conscience, must attempt the difficult task of determining the amount that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, would have awarded. Orientale, (slip op. at 31). This judicially determined amount does not usurp the role of a jury, especially since all parties must consent to the changed amount, but it is to be viewed as a reasonable amount based upon adduced evidence to encourage a settlement. Still, should the parties not agree to the court’s fixed amount, the parties would be afforded a new trial on damages.
From a defense perspective, Orientale teaches the following: first, this change in the application of remittitur and additur where both sides must agree to the change, is a judicial authority informing a difficult plaintiff how much his case is worth thereby encouraging a settlement; and second, this change gives the defense an advantage should a jury award an astronomically high verdict, a court can reduce the amount to a reasonable sum or allow the parties to have a new trial on damages for a more reasonable determination on a plaintiff’s damages.