What is a motion for a directed verdict in an insurance litigation case?

A motion for a directed verdict in an insurance litigation case is a legal argument that is made before the jury reaches a verdict. It is typically made by the defendant in the case and argues that the plaintiff has failed to provide evidence which is sufficient to support their claim. The motion requests that the judge enter a final ruling in the case without the need for a jury verdict. This motion is typically based on the fact that the plaintiff has not met their burden of proof. In Washington, courts generally recognize three types of motions for directed verdicts. The first is a motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case, which is heard after the plaintiff rests, but before the defendant offers any evidence. The second is a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, which is heard after both the plaintiff and the defendant have presented their evidence. The third is a judgment as a matter of law, which is typically heard at the same time as the motion for directed verdict. In an insurance litigation case, the motion for a directed verdict is generally used to try to focus the jury’s attention on the facts that are favorable to the defendant. If the court grants the motion, this would usually mean that the plaintiff has failed to meet their burden of proof and the case would end in favor of the defendant. If the court denies the motion, then the jury will consider all the evidence that was presented in order to reach a verdict.

Related FAQs

What is a motion for a directed verdict in an insurance litigation case?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts