FirstNet Insurance objects to new trial

FirstNet Insurance Co. has asked the federal court to deny a bid for a new trial filed by the owner of a clothing store in Garapan that was burned in 2010.

FirstNet lawyer Richard W. Pierce requested the U.S. District Court for the NMI not to conduct an oral argument on the motion as it would only be a “waste of judicial and litigant resources.”

“In this case, Zhen Rui Brother Corp. requested a jury, the jury spoke, and there is no justification whatsoever for disturbing its decision,” Pierce said in his opposition to a new trial.

Zhen Rui Brother Corp. is the owner of BL Clothing Store that burned down on Oct. 30, 2010.

Last month, a federal jury determined that on Oct. 30, 2010, either Zhen Rui Brother Corp. intentionally caused the fire or someone with the permission of the corporation intentionally set off the blaze.

The jury also found that Zhen Rui Brother Corp. intentionally overstated to FirstNet the actual cash value of its loss in the fire.

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona then discharged FirstNet from any obligation under the insurance policy to Zhen Rui Brother Corp.

Manglona also ruled in favor of FirstNet on Zhen Rui Brother Corp.’s counterclaim against FirstNet for breach of contract.

Zhen Rui Brother Corp., through counsel Ramon K. Quichocho, recently asked the court to hold a new trial in the case.

Quichocho said a court security officer for whatever reason breached the bailiff’s oath by allowing another court security officer, who did not take the bailiff’s oath, to take charge of the jury and to communicate with the jury.

Quichoco also argued that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence and thus supports the claim of Zhen Rui Brother Corp. for a new trial.

In opposition to the motion, Pierce said that Zhen Rui has shown no prejudice from the court security officer’s receipt of the jury’s note. Pierce said the note shows that the jury had already reached a verdict.

Pierce said the defendant has not shown that the court security officer’s receipt of the note influenced or could have influenced the jury’s decision or deliberations.

On the issue of the court’s permission for expert witnesses to testify, the lawyer said the court has ruled the issue twice, and there has been no showing that the court abused its discretion.

Pierce added that the weight of the evidence favored FirstNet.