Jami Johnston v. Castles and Crowns, Inc., and Delaire Tibbetts

Summary

The court held that the jury returned an inconsistent verdict by awarding damages for unjust enrichment after finding Johnston liable for conversion and conspiracy, despite instructions limiting consideration of unjust enrichment to a different circumstance. Because the trial court could not cure the inconsistency by setting aside only the unjust-enrichment award, Johnston was entitled to a new trial. The new trial must encompass the claims asserted by Castles against Johnston and Johnston's claims against Castles and Tibbetts. Sellers, J., dissenting, would have affirmed because the verdicts were not mutually exclusive and the trial court acted within its discretion in eliminating the duplicative award.