A mistrial was granted on the last day of trial for a lawsuit involving a Collinsville collision after an expert witness mentioned receiving payment from Progressive Insurance during cross-examination in violation of a motion in limine, and a juror told the court that he found it unusual when a binder with “Progressive” written on it was facing him.
Plaintiff Jonathan Snyder was represented at trial by Andrew Mundwiller of The Cagle Law Firm in St. Louis.
Defendant Ruben Vital was represented by Daniel Bradley of Rynearson Suess Schnurbusch & Champion LLC in Fairview Heights.
Vital seeks sanctions against Snyder over the insurance issue.
“For the sake of the integrity of the judicial process, I hope the complaint is dismissed as an appropriate sanction and reminder that no one is above the rules of the court and the rule of law,” Bradley told the Record. “The citizens/jurors who answered the call of civic duty deserve to have this addressed in the most serious fashion out of respect for their time and efforts.”
Bradley filed a memorandum in support of Vital’s motion for sanctions after the mistrial was declared at 10:20 a.m. on March 3.
According to the memorandum, on Nov. 30, 2021, Madison County Circuit Judge Christopher Threlkeld denied Snyder’s motion to cross-examine the defendant’s experts concerning payments received from Progressive Insurance Company. Further, Threlkeld granted the defendant’s motion to exclude all reference to the existence of insurance.
Threlkeld also denied the plaintiff’s motion to limit Dr. Christopher Grote’s testimony. Snyder had argued that Grote failed to adhere to the court’s order concerning a medical examination.
The trial began on Feb. 28 and was expected to last four or five days. Grote was the defendant’s last expert witness to testify during the trial on March 3. During cross-examination, the plaintiff’s counsel first questioned him about failing to perform the medical examination and then asked him about who he received payment from for his work on the case.
When Mundwiller asked Grote how much money he received, he responded between $20,000 and $25,000. Mundwiller then asked where the money came from, and Grote responded that Snyder arranged for payment.
“Mr. Snyder?” Mundwiller asked.
“I’m sorry, Mr. Bradley,” Grote responded.
Mundwiller asked Grote, “Who actually made the payments?”
“It might have been Progressive Insurance,” he responded.
Bradley objected, and counsel for the two parties discussed the issue in the judge’s chambers.
After a brief recess, a juror approached Threlkeld’s bailiff about a binder on the plaintiff's counsel's table that concerned him.
“Yesterday afternoon there was a binder open straight in front of me right here at the corner,” the juror said. “It happened to mention ‘Progressive’ and stuff. And I just - I noticed it yesterday and found it unusual that it would be open that way specifically kind of to us. And I didn’t think anything of it yesterday until the last occurrence here. I figured it was worthwhile saying something because I was unsure, and it did seem odd yesterday to see something.”
Bradley told the Record that due to Covid-19 precautions, the jurors were positioned in the audience seating rather than the jury box, and the attorneys were turned to face the jurors with their backs to the judge’s bench. Because of the positioning, the binder in question would have been in the upper corner of the counsel’s table and would have been upside down to the attorneys.
In response, Threlkeld declared a mistrial.
“In an obvious attempt to influence and improperly taint the jury, plaintiff’s counsel multiple times attempted to provide information to the jury that insurance was involved in the case,” Bradley wrote in the memorandum.
He argues that the conduct puts the integrity of the jury system of Madison County at risk, and the issues of fairness and justice are at stake.
“If the court allows plaintiff to intentionally violate the court’s pre-trial orders and to intentionally attempt to influence a jury improperly to bolster a plaintiff’s chance of recovery, it insults the integrity of the court, it insults the integrity of the jurors, it insults the integrity of defense counsel, it insults the integrity of defendant, and perhaps worst of all, it insults the integrity of the entire judicial system and is a stain on the judicial process in Madison County, Illinois,” Bradley wrote.
Bradley is asking Threlkeld to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. He wrote that a new trial would harm the defendant and opens him to “potentially a $10 million trial.”
“This time and money has been for nothing and is wasted,” Bradley wrote. “They will now have to begin the process again which will mean more time and money so counsel for plaintiff can simply have another bit at the apple and face no repercussions.”
Bradley also seeks monetary sanctions, including compensation for preparing and arguing the motion for sanctions, court costs and fees, totaling approximately $36,381.
Bradley also asks for any future fees and costs if the case is set for a new trial.
“These future costs and fees will be incurred as a direct result of counsel’s conduct,” he wrote.
Mundwiller filed a memorandum of law in opposition to sanctions on behalf of Snyder, arguing that dismissal with prejudice is a “drastic sanction” and should only be entered “where the party’s actions show a deliberate, contumacious or unwanted disregard of the court’s authority.”
“Plaintiff’s counsel recognizes this court’s discretion to sustain a request for mistrial and does not question the court’s authority to do so,” he wrote.
However, he wrote that the Fifth District Appellate Court held that a mistrial is not appropriate in instances where insurance is introduced by an “isolated inadvertent or unresponsive reference by someone other than plaintiff’s counsel, with no apparent intent to prejudice the defendant.”
Mundwiller wrote that Grote’s statement that he sent the payment request to Snyder was “obviously an inaccurate statement.” He claims he attempted to provide clarification that Vital’s counsel was making the payments rather than Snyder.
“During the in-chambers discussion, defendant’s counsel alleged plaintiff’s counsel purposefully elicited this information,” Mundwiller wrote. “However, defendant’s counsel admitted Dr. Grote was told not to mention insurance while testifying at trial.”
In regards to the juror’s statements, Mundwiller wrote that the incident was unintentional and involved a “singular page in one of the client binders.” He added that they had “zero objection to juror number six being excused since alternates existed.”
Mundwiller did not respond to a request for comment.
A motion hearing regarding Vital’s request for sanctions is set for March 28 at 9 a.m.
According to a joint statement of the case filed Feb. 22, Vital allegedly caused a collision on Nov. 13, 2018, in Collinsville. Court documents state that Snyder was traveling northbound on St. Clair Avenue. As Snyder neared his residence, Vital was backing out of a private driveway onto St. Clair Avenue and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle.
The court previously found Vital was negligent, so the jury was asked to determine damages.
Threlkeld granted partial summary judgment on Oct. 19, 2021, after Snyder moved for summary judgment on the issues of Vital’s liability.
In Vital’s answer to the complaint, he denied liability and argued that Snyder’s alleged injuries were caused by “his own conduct in operating a vehicle too fast for conditions and failing to keep a proper lookout.”
Madison County Circuit Court case number 19-L-783