Auto-Owners also sought a new trial, arguing that plaintiff’s counsel had improperly told the jury the other driver was drunk. The court agreed the references were erroneous, because the other driver’s possible intoxication was irrelevant to the PIP questions, but it found the error harmless, pointing to a split verdict and the trial court’s curative instructions. The other driver, Charles E. Watkins, had settled with Zielinski before trial and was not part of the PIP case.
Auto-Owners loses appeal over disputed bill, owes $315,000 no-fault judgment
By Awais
