Wollan v. Innovis Health

Summary

The court held that the jury's verdict was inconsistent and irreconcilable because the amount of past economic damages assigned to Essentia did not correspond to the jury's 25 percent fault allocation and lacked evidentiary support. The district court therefore abused its discretion by denying Essentia's motion for a new trial, requiring reversal of the judgment and remand for a new trial. The court also upheld the exclusion of settlement evidence under Rule 408, while leaving its admissibility on retrial to be assessed in the context of the evidence presented at trial.