Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Harrell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Stanley did not govern the admissibility of payments made by a private health insurer
• “To preserve the issue of an inconsistent verdict, the party claiming inconsistency must raise the issue before the jury is discharged.”
• “[A]ppellee was entitled to introduce into evidence (and to request from the jury) the gross amount of her medical bills, rather than the lesser amount paid by appellee’s private health insurer in full settlement of the medical bills.”
• “[A]ppellee was entitled to introduce into evidence (and to request from the jury) the gross amount of her medical bills, rather than the lesser amount paid by appellee’s private health insurer in full settlement of the medical bills.”
• “[A]ppellee was entitled to introduce into evidence (and to request from the jury) the gross amount of her medical bills, rather than the lesser amount paid by appellee’s private health insurer in full settlement of the medical bills.”
• “[I]t is relatively clear that our supreme court intended to limit abrogation of the evidentiary portion of the collateral source rule to cases where the benefits received to reduce the cost of medical care were not earned (or paid for) in some way by the plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).