Standard of Review for a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (“JNOV”)
A trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the (jury’s) verdict, which is also known as a “JNOV.” The verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court entered the JNOV for the defendant prompting the plaintiff to appeal. Here is important legal analysis when appealing a JNOV:
A JNOV order is reviewed de novo. Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812, 819 (Fla. 2017). In reviewing a JNOV, the appellate court must “view all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant, and, in the face of evidence, which is at odds or contradictory, all conflicts must be resolved in favor of the party against whom the motion has been made.” Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Hernandez, 360 So. 3d 737, 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). “Trial courts may grant motions for JNOV only when there is no evidence or inferences which may support the opposing party’s position.” Id. (quoting Fast Laundry II v. Gray, 861 So. 2d 81, 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)); see also Hancock v. Schorr, 941 So. 2d 409, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“A JNOV is appropriate only in situations where there is no evidence upon which a jury could rely in finding for the non-movant.”). “It is not the function of the trial judge or the appellate court to (re)weigh evidence.” Vecta Cont., Inc. v. Lynch, 444 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). “The jury should decide the issues where there is the possibility of different conclusions or inferences from the evidence.” Id.
Acosta v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2207a (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
The appellate court held that the trial court erred when it granted the JNOV. Specifically, the trial court erred because the trial court impermissibly substituted “its own assessment of causation for the jury’s.” Acosta, supra. The appellate court expounded:
The trial court’s ruling impermissibly reweighed the photographic evidence and supplanted the jury’s role as factfinder. The [plaintiff’s] expert and [defendant’s] field adjuster agreed that the roof photographs depicted damage. They simply disagreed as to what had caused the damage — Hurricane Irma’s wind force versus wear and tear. The trial court’s statement that “the roof photos do not show any indication of storm damage or misalignment” reflects its own factual determination about the meaning or significance of those images. “[I]t is not the function of the trial judge or the appellate court to (re)weigh evidence,” … and a JNOV “is appropriate only in situations where there is no evidence upon which a jury could rely in finding for the non-movant.” The competing expert opinions and the photographs provided competent substantial evidence from which the jury could conclude that Hurricane Irma had created the opening allowing water intrusion. Therefore, the trial court, by crediting its own view of the photographs over the testimony presented, engaged in the very reweighing of conflicting evidence that our precedent forbids.
Acosta, supra (internal citations omitted).
Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.
