State Farm has lost its bid to shrink a payout, after an Ohio appeals court reinstated a $203,806 jury verdict the insurer had fought to cut.
The dispute began with a 2016 car crash. Terry Benetis was hit by drivers who carried no auto insurance, so she claimed under her own uninsured motorist policy with State Farm. The other drivers defaulted, and her case went to trial against the carrier alone.
On September 27, 2024, a jury awarded her $203,806 - $163,806 for past medical and economic losses, and $40,000 in non-economic damages.
State Farm fought back. It asked the trial court to override the jury through a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, known as JNOV, or to order a new trial or a reduced award. Its argument: Benetis hadn't proven the crash caused her injuries, because her medical experts never tied the treatment to the accident. The carrier noted her only 2016 treatment was for "soft tissue" injuries relating to chest pain and contusion.
A magistrate agreed and slashed the award, cutting the economic damages to $6,831 and the non-economic damages to $2,000. The trial court adopted that ruling on September 15, 2025.
The appeals court reversed - and the issue was process. A JNOV requires judgment for the party that asked for it, but the court ruled for Benetis. A reduced award, or remittitur, has its own steps: the judge must find the verdict excessive but not driven by passion or prejudice, and must get the plaintiff's consent or order a new trial. The trial court did neither.
The panel also found the lower court misread a key witness. It had said a psychologist Benetis retained to evaluate her never connected the treatment to the crash. In fact, the court found, she testified the accident was the "direct and proximate cause" of Benetis's PTSD, major depressive disorder and panic disorder. By doubting her, the judge had strayed into weighing credibility - a jury's role, not the court's.
The court called the trial judgment void because it granted "no relief authorized under law," and ordered the full verdict reinstated.
For insurers, the takeaway is procedural. Post-verdict motions turn on using the right legal standard. Mislabel one, or skip a required step, and the entire ruling can collapse. And attacking a plaintiff's expert on causation can backfire if that expert actually testified to it.
