IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION





MUTUAL SERVICE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., INC., as Subrogee of Land O' Lakes, Inc.,
Plaintiff,

No. C 99-3099-MWB

vs.



PRELIMINARY AND FINAL

INSTRUCTIONS

TO THE JURY

PAUL J. ARMBRECHT, D.V.M.,
Defendant.

____________________



TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS 1

NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS 1

NO. 2 - STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2

NO. 3 - DUTY OF JURORS 4

NO. 4 - BREACH OF CONTRACT 6

NO. 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF 8

NO. 6 - ORDER OF TRIAL 9

NO. 7 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE 10

NO. 8 - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES 11

NO. 9 - STIPULATED FACTS 13

NO. 10 - DEPOSITIONS 14

NO. 11 - OBJECTIONS 15

NO. 12 - BENCH CONFERENCES 16

NO. 13 - NOTE-TAKING 17

NO. 14 - CONDUCT OF JURORS DURING TRIAL 18

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS 20

NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION 20

NO. 2 - IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES 21

NO. 3 - BREACH OF CONTRACT 22

NO. 4 - DAMAGES--IN GENERAL 24

NO. 5 - ACTUAL DAMAGES 25

NO. 6 - DELIBERATIONS 26



VERDICT FORM

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS



Members of the jury, before the lawyers make their opening statements, I give you these preliminary instructions to help you better understand the trial and your role in it. Consider these instructions, together with any oral instructions given to you during the trial and the written final instructions given at the end of the trial, and apply them as a whole to the facts of the case. In considering these instructions, the order in which they are given is not important.



PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - STATEMENT OF THE CASE



The following brief summary of the case is not to be considered evidence or proof of any facts or events in the case. It simply informs you of the factual disputes between the parties.

This is a civil case brought by plaintiff Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Company, Inc., against defendant Paul. J. Armbrecht, D.V.M., a veterinarian. Throughout these instructions I will refer to the plaintiff as "MSI." MSI brought this lawsuit as the "subrogee" of Land O' Lakes, Inc. That means that MSI has the right, as the liability insurer of Land O' Lakes, to be put in the position of Land O' Lakes in order to pursue recovery from a third party, Dr. Armbrecht, who may be legally responsible to Land O' Lakes for a loss paid by MSI. In other words, MSI "steps into the shoes" of Land O' Lakes, for the purposes of this lawsuit. Consequently, only the ownership of the claim has changed. MSI has no greater rights than Land O' Lakes and has only the right to prosecute against Dr. Armbrecht whatever claim Land O' Lakes possessed against him. Similarly, Dr. Armbrecht may assert in this action whatever defenses he could have raised if the suit had been brought by Land O' Lakes itself.

In this case, MSI alleges that Dr. Armbrecht breached his oral contract with Land O' Lakes by failing to advise Land O' Lakes properly with respect to whether Land O' Lakes could move hogs, which had tested positive for pseudorabies, from one Land O' Lakes facility in Green County, Iowa, to another Land O' Lakes facility in Calhoun County, Iowa. Loren Hoag, who operated a hog production facility neighboring the Land O' Lakes facility in Calhoun County, had sued Land O' Lakes for allegedly infecting his hogs with pseudorabies. MSI seeks damages arising out of its settlement, on behalf of Land O' Lakes, of Mr. Hoag's suit against Land O' Lakes. Dr. Armbrecht, however, denies that he breached his oral contract with Land O' Lakes and states that he obtained governmental authorization for the movement of Land O' Lakes' hogs to the Calhoun County facility.

You will be asked to resolve these disputes between the parties.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - DUTY OF JURORS



It will be your duty to decide from the evidence what the facts are. You, and you alone, are the judges of the facts. You will hear the evidence, decide what the facts are and then apply those facts to the law which I will give you in these preliminary instructions, any instructions given during the trial, and in the final instructions at the conclusion of the case. You will then deliberate and reach your verdict. You are the sole judges of the facts; but you must follow the law as stated in my instructions, whether you agree with it or not.

You have been chosen and sworn as jurors in this case to try the issues of fact presented by the parties. Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I will give it to you.

This case should be considered and decided by you as an action between persons of equal standing in the community, of equal worth, and holding the same or similar stations in life. In this case, MSI is a corporation and an insurance company. The mere fact that a party is a corporation or an insurance company does not mean that it is entitled to any greater or lesser consideration by you than you would give an individual. Similarly, an individual is not entitled to any greater or lesser consideration than you would give a corporation or insurance company. All persons, including individuals, corporations, and insurance companies, stand equal before the law, and are entitled to the same fair consideration by you. When a corporation is involved, of course, it may act only through natural persons as its agents or employees. In general, any agent or employee of a corporation may bind the corporation by the acts and declarations made while acting within the scope of the authority delegated to the employee by the corporation or within the scope of the employee's or agent's duties as an employee or agent of the corporation.

You should not take anything I may say or do during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdict should be.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - BREACH OF CONTRACT





To help you follow the evidence, here is a brief summary of the elements of MSI's claim of breach of contract, as subrogee of Land O' Lakes.

In this case, MSI contends that Dr. Armbrecht breached his oral contract to provide Land O' Lakes with professional services. Every contract for the performance of professional services, including the contract between Land O' Lakes and Dr. Armbrecht, has an implied term that the professional will use the degree of skill, care, and learning ordinarily possessed and exercised by other persons in the same profession in similar circumstances. MSI alleges that Dr. Armbrecht breached this "professional standards" term of his oral contract by failing to advise Land O' Lakes properly with respect to whether Land O' Lakes could move hogs, which had tested positive for pseudorabies, from one Land O' Lakes facility in Green County, Iowa, to another Land O' Lakes facility in Calhoun County, Iowa. MSI contends that Land O' Lakes was damaged as a result of Dr. Armbrecht's breach of contract, because it was forced to defend, then settle, the lawsuit brought by Mr. Hoag.

Therefore, to win its claim of breach of contract, MSI must prove both of the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

One, Dr. Armbrecht breached the "professional standards" term implied in his contract with Land O' Lakes;

Two, Dr. Armbrecht's breach of the "professional standards" term of his contract caused damage to Land O' Lakes.

If MSI does not prove both of the above elements by the greater weight of the evidence, your verdict must be for Dr. Armbrecht on MSI's claim of breach of contract.



This is only a preliminary outline of the elements of MSI's claim. At the end of the trial, I will give you final written instructions that explain this claim in greater detail. Because they are more detailed, those final instructions govern on the elements of MSI's claim.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF



In these instructions, you are told that your verdict depends on whether you find certain facts have been proved. The burden of proving a fact is upon the party whose claim depends upon that fact, in this case, MSI. MSI must prove facts by the "greater weight of the evidence." To prove something "by the greater weight of the evidence" means to prove that it is more likely true than not true. The "greater weight of the evidence" is determined by considering all of the evidence and deciding which evidence is more believable. If, on any issue in the case, you find that the evidence is equally balanced, then you cannot find that the issue has been proved.

The "greater weight of the evidence" is not necessarily determined by the greater number of witnesses or exhibits a party has presented. The testimony of a single witness that produces in your mind a belief in the likelihood of truth is sufficient for proof of any fact and would justify a verdict in accordance with such testimony. This is so, even though a number of witnesses may have testified to the contrary, if after consideration of all of the evidence in the case, you hold a greater belief in the accuracy and reliability of that one witness.

You may have heard of the term "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." That is a stricter standard, which applies in criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases such as this. You should, therefore, put it out of your minds.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - ORDER OF TRIAL



The trial will proceed as follows:

After these preliminary instructions, the plaintiff's attorney may make an opening statement. Next, the lawyer for the defendant may make an opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence, but is simply a summary of what the lawyer expects the evidence to be.

The plaintiff will then present evidence and call witnesses and the lawyer for the defendant may cross-examine them. Following the plaintiff's case, the defendant may present evidence and call witnesses and the lawyer for the plaintiff may cross-examine them.

After the evidence is concluded, I will give you most of the final instructions. The lawyers will then make their closing arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for you. As with opening statements, closing arguments are not evidence. I will then give you the remaining final instructions on deliberations, and you will retire to deliberate on your verdict.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE



You shall base your verdict only upon the evidence, these instructions, and other instructions that I may give you during the trial.

Evidence is:

1. Testimony of witnesses, which includes testimony given in person or testimony previously given in depositions or videotaped depositions.

2. Exhibits admitted into evidence by the court.

3. Stipulations, which are agreements between the parties.

4. Any other matter admitted into evidence.

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. You should not be concerned with these terms since the law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to direct and circumstantial evidence. The weight to be given any evidence is for you to decide.

The following are not evidence:

1. Statements, arguments, questions, and comments by the lawyers.

2. Objections and rulings on objections.

3. Testimony I tell you to disregard.

4. Anything you saw or heard about this case outside the courtroom.

You should not take anything I may say or do during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES



In deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You may believe all of what a witness says, or only part of it, or none of it.

In deciding what testimony to believe, consider the witnesses' intelligence, their opportunity to have seen or heard the things they testify about, their memories, the motives they may have for testifying a certain way, their manner while testifying, whether they said something different at an earlier time, the general reasonableness of their testimony, and the extent to which their testimony is consistent with other evidence that you believe.

In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind that people sometimes hear or see things differently and sometimes forget things. You need to consider therefore whether a contradiction is an innocent misrecollection or lapse of memory or an intentional falsehood, and that may depend on whether it has to do with an important fact or only a small detail.

You may hear testimony from persons described as experts. Persons who have become experts in a field because of their education and experience may give their opinions on matters in that field and the reasons for their opinions. Consider expert testimony just like any other testimony. You may accept it or reject it. You may give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness's education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case. Also, an expert witness may be asked to assume certain facts are true and to give an opinion based on that assumption. This is called a hypothetical question. If any facts assumed in the question are not proved by the evidence, you should decide if that omission affects the value of the expert's opinion.

You may hear evidence that Dr. Armbrecht or representatives of MSI or Land O' Lakes made statements before this trial, either under oath or not under oath. If you find that a particular statement was made, you may regard that statement as evidence in this case the same as if the person had made the statement under oath during this trial. If you find that such a statement was made and is inconsistent with the testimony in this trial of that person or the party he or she represents, then you may also use the statement as a basis for disregarding all or any part of that witness's testimony during this trial, but you are not required to do so. You should not disregard that witness's testimony during the trial if other credible evidence supports it or if you believe it for any other reason.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 - STIPULATED FACTS



The plaintiff and the defendant have agreed or "stipulated" to certain facts and have reduced these facts to a written agreement or stipulation. Any counsel may, throughout the trial, read to you all or a portion of the stipulated facts. You should treat these stipulated facts as having been proved.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 10 - DEPOSITIONS



Certain testimony from a deposition may be read into evidence. A deposition is testimony taken under oath before the trial and preserved in writing. Consider that testimony as if it had been given in court.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 11 - OBJECTIONS



From time to time during the trial, I may be called upon to make rulings of law on objections or motions made by the lawyers. It is the duty of the lawyer for each party to object when another party offers testimony or other evidence that the lawyer believes is not properly admissible. You should not show prejudice against a lawyer or the party the lawyer represents because the lawyer has made objections. You should not infer or conclude from any ruling or other comment I may make that I have any opinions on the merits of the case favoring one side or the other. Also, if I sustain an objection to a question that goes unanswered by the witness, you should not draw any inferences or conclusions from the question itself.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 - BENCH CONFERENCES



During the trial it may be necessary for me to talk with the lawyers out of your hearing, either by having a bench conference here while you are present in the courtroom, or by calling a recess. Please understand that while you are waiting, we are working. The purpose of these conferences is to decide how certain evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence, and to avoid confusion and error. We will, of course, do what we can to keep the number and length of these conferences to a minimum.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 13 - NOTE-TAKING



If you want to take notes during the trial, you may. However, it is difficult to take detailed notes and pay attention to what the witnesses are saying. If you do take notes, be sure that your note-taking does not interfere with listening to and considering all of the evidence. Also, if you take notes, do not discuss them with anyone before you begin your deliberations. Do not take your notes with you at the end of the day. Be sure to leave them on your chair in the courtroom. The court attendant will safeguard the notes. No one will read them. The notes will remain confidential throughout the trial and will be destroyed at the conclusion of the trial.

If you choose not to take notes, remember it is your own individual responsibility to listen carefully to the evidence. You cannot give this responsibility to someone who is taking notes. We depend on the judgment of all members of the jury; you must all remember and consider the evidence in this case.

Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your own memory regarding what was said. Your notes are not evidence. A juror's notes are not more reliable than the memory of another juror who chooses to consider the evidence carefully without taking notes. You should not be overly influenced by the notes.

You will notice that we do have an official court reporter making a record of the trial. However, we will not have typewritten transcripts of this record available for your use in reaching your verdict.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 14 - CONDUCT OF JURORS

DURING TRIAL





You will not be required to remain together while court is in recess. However, to ensure fairness, you, as jurors, must obey the following rules:

First, do not talk among yourselves about this case, or about anyone involved with it, until the end of the case when you go to the jury room to decide on your verdict.

Second, do not talk with anyone else about this case, or about anyone involved with it, until the trial has ended and you have been discharged as jurors.

Third, when you are outside the courtroom, do not let anyone tell you anything about the case, or about anyone involved with it until the trial has ended and your verdict has been accepted by me. If someone should try to talk to you about the case during the trial, please report it to me.

Fourth, during the trial you should not talk with or speak to any of the parties, lawyers or witnesses involved in this case--you should not even pass the time of day with any of them. It is important not only that you do justice in this case, but that you also give the appearance of doing justice. If a person from one side of the case sees you talking to a person from the other side--even if it is simply to pass the time of day--an unwarranted and unnecessary suspicion about your fairness might be aroused. If any lawyer, party, or witness does not speak to you when you pass in the hall, ride the elevator, or the like, remember it is because they are not supposed to talk or visit with you either.

Fifth, do not read any news stories or articles about the case, or about anyone involved with it, or listen to any radio or television reports about the case or about anyone involved with it.

Sixth, do not do any research or make any investigation about the case on your own.

Seventh, do not make up your mind during the trial about what the verdict should be. Keep an open mind until after you have gone to the jury room to decide the case and you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence.

DATED this 19th day of September, 2001.



FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION



Members of the jury, the instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial and any oral or written instructions I gave you during the trial remain in effect. I now give you some additional instructions.

You must, of course, continue to follow the instructions I gave you earlier, as well as those I give you now. You must not single out some instructions and ignore others, because all are important. The instructions I am about to give you now, as well as the preliminary instructions given to you at the beginning of the trial, are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room. All instructions, whenever given and whether in writing or not, must be followed. This is true even though some of the instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial are not repeated here.

In considering these instructions, the order in which they are given is not important.

Neither in these instructions nor in any ruling, action, or remark that I have made during the course of this trial have I intended to give any opinion or suggestion as to what your verdict should be.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES



In Preliminary Instruction No. 8, I instructed you on the credibility of witnesses. I now give you this further instruction on how the credibility of a witness can be "impeached."

A witness may be discredited or "impeached" by contradictory evidence, or by evidence that at some time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, that is inconsistent with the witness's present testimony. If you believe any witness has been impeached and thus discredited, it is your exclusive province to give the testimony of that witness such credibility, if any, as you may think it deserves.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - BREACH OF CONTRACT



In this case, MSI contends that Dr. Armbrecht breached his oral contract to provide Land O' Lakes with professional services. Every contract for the performance of professional services, including the contract between Land O' Lakes and Dr. Armbrecht, has an implied term that the professional will use the degree of skill, care, and learning ordinarily possessed and exercised by other persons in the same profession in similar circumstances. MSI alleges that Dr. Armbrecht breached this "professional standards" term of his oral contract by failing to advise Land O' Lakes properly with respect to whether Land O' Lakes could move hogs, which had tested positive for pseudorabies, from one Land O' Lakes facility in Green County, Iowa, to another Land O' Lakes facility in Calhoun County, Iowa. MSI contends that Land O' Lakes was damaged as a result of Dr. Armbrecht's breach of contract, because it was forced to defend, then settle, the lawsuit brought by Mr. Hoag.

Therefore, to win its claim of breach of contract, MSI must prove both of the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

One, Dr. Armbrecht breached the "professional standards" term implied in his contract with Land O' Lakes.

A breach of the contract occurs when a party fails to perform a material term of the contract, such as the "professional standards" term implied in the professional services contract at issue in this case.

In considering whether Dr. Armbrecht complied with "professional standards," you may consider that the Iowa Department of Agriculture administers and enforces the provisions of law relating to the movement of hogs at issue in this case.



Two, Dr. Armbrecht's breach of the "professional standards" term of his contract caused damage to Land O' Lakes.

If MSI can show (a) that Dr. Armbrecht's breach of his contract with Land O' Lakes caused the litigation with Mr. Hoag, (b) that the litigation involved payment of attorney fees and expenses and a monetary settlement by Land O' Lakes, or MSI as Land O' Lakes' insurer, and (c) that such expenditures could not have been avoided by Land O' Lakes by reasonable and prudent effort, then MSI can recover damages against Dr. Armbrecht measured by the amount of such expenditures.

The conduct of a party is a "cause" of damage when it is a substantial factor in producing damage and when the damage would not have happened except for the conduct. "Substantial" means the party's conduct has such an effect in producing damage as to lead a reasonable person to regard it as a cause.



If MSI does not prove both of the above elements by the greater weight of the evidence, your verdict must be for Dr. Armbrecht on MSI's claim of breach of contract. However, if you find that MSI has proved both of these elements, then MSI is entitled to damages in some amount.

Additionally, if MSI has proved both elements of its claim, for purposes of rulings I must make after trial, you must determine whether, in defending, then settling, Mr. Hoag's claim against Land O' Lakes, MSI was protecting a real or supposed right or interest of its own, or whether it was instead making a voluntary payment. You are not to speculate on the impact of your determination on this question upon my further rulings. You will answer this question in the "Final Question" section of the attached Verdict Form.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - DAMAGES--IN GENERAL



The fact that I am instructing you on the proper measure of damages should not be considered as an indication that I have any view as to which party is entitled to your verdict in this case. Instructions as to the measure of damages are given only for your guidance, in the event that you should find that the plaintiff is entitled to damages in accord with the other instructions.

However, if you find in favor of MSI on its claim of breach of contract, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, then you must award MSI such sum as you find by the greater weight of the evidence will fairly and justly compensate MSI for any damages you find that Dr. Armbrecht's breach of contract caused Land O' Lakes. I will now explain to you some matters applicable to all of your determinations of damages.

Remember, throughout your deliberations, you must not engage in any speculation, guess, or conjecture. Also, you must not award actual damages on a claim by way of punishment or through sympathy. Your judgment must not be exercised arbitrarily, or out of sympathy or prejudice for or against any of the parties. The amount you assess for any item of damage must not exceed the amount caused by Dr. Armbrecht's breach of the contract, as proved by the evidence.

You must award the full amount for any item of damages that MSI has proved. However, a party cannot recover duplicate damages. Therefore, do not allow amounts awarded under one item of damage to be included in any amount awarded under another item of damage. Also, in arriving at the amount of an item of damages, you cannot establish a figure by taking down the estimate of each juror as to that item of damages and agreeing in advance that the average of those estimates shall be your award of damages for that item.

Attached to these Instructions is a Verdict Form, which you must fill out upon completion of your deliberations. You should only award those damages, if any, that MSI has proved by the greater weight of the evidence.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - ACTUAL DAMAGES



If you find in favor of MSI, as subrogee of Land O' Lakes, on the claim of breach of contract under Final Jury Instruction No. 3, then you must award damages that MSI has proved by the greater weight of the evidence. MSI seeks two distinct types of damages:

1. The amount paid to settle the lawsuit by Mr. Hoag against Land O' Lakes; and

2. The attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defending Mr. Hoag's lawsuit against Land O' Lakes.

MSI must show that the expenditures were reasonable in amount. You may reduce any item of damages to the amount, if any, reasonably expended in light of the circumstances.

An injured party has a duty to "mitigate" damages, that is, to take reasonable measures to reduce its own damages. Therefore, Land O' Lakes was not required to let Mr. Hoag's lawsuit go to a determination of liability and entry of judgment in order to recover from Dr. Armbrecht the costs of defending and settling Mr. Hoag's claim, if it was reasonable, in light of all of the circumstances, for Land O' Lakes to enter into a settlement with Mr. Hoag instead. However, in order to recover on its claim against Dr. Armbrecht, Land O' Lakes must demonstrate that both the decision to settle the suit brought by Mr. Hoag and the amount paid in settlement were reasonable, in light of all of the circumstances.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - DELIBERATIONS



In conducting your deliberations and returning your verdict, there are certain rules you must follow.

First, when you go to the jury room, you must select one of your members as your foreperson. That person will preside over your discussions and speak for you here in court.

Second, it is your duty, as jurors, to discuss this case with one another in the jury room. You should try to reach agreement if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with your fellow jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. Do not be afraid to change your opinions if the discussion persuades you that you should, but do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right, or simply to reach a verdict. Remember at all times that you are not partisans. You are judges--judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case.

Third, if you need to communicate with me during your deliberations, you may send a note to me through the Court Security Officer, signed by one or more jurors. I will respond as soon as possible either in writing or orally in open court. Remember that you should not tell anyone--including me--how your votes stand numerically.

Fourth, your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law which I have given to you in my instructions. Nothing I have said or done is intended to suggest what your verdict should be--that is entirely for you to decide.

Finally, I am giving you the verdict form. A verdict form is simply the written notice of the decision that you reach in this case. You will take this form to the jury room, and complete it when you have reached a verdict. Your verdict must be unanimous and you must all sign the verdict form. When you have reached a verdict, the foreperson will advise the Court Security Officer that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2001.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION



MUTUAL SERVICE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., INC., as Subrogee of Land O' Lakes, Inc.,
Plaintiff,

No. C 99-3099-MWB

vs.



VERDICT FORM

PAUL J. ARMBRECHT, D.V.M.,
Defendant.

____________________



On the claim of plaintiff Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co., Inc., as Subrogee of Land O' Lakes, Inc., we, the Jury, find as follows:















Liability
On the claim of breach of contract, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, how do you find in answer to the following questions? (Please answer all of the questions in the "Liability" section. However, if you answer "no" to any question in the "Liability" section, you cannot award damages to MSI. Therefore, if you answer "no" to any question in the "Liability" section, do not answer any questions in the "Damages" section or the "Final Question." Instead, sign the verdict form, and notify the Court Security Officer that you have reached a verdict.)
Did Dr. Armbrecht breach his contract with Land O' Lakes? __ Yes __ No
Did Dr. Armbrecht's breach of his contract with Land O' Lakes cause the litigation with Mr. Hoag?

__ Yes


__ No
Did the litigation with Mr. Hoag involve the payment of attorney fees and expenses and a monetary settlement by Land O' Lakes, or MSI as Land O' Lakes' insurer?

__ Yes


__ No
Has MSI proved that such expenditures could not have been avoided by Land O' Lakes by reasonable and prudent effort?

__ Yes


__ No
STOP






Damages
If you answered "yes" to all of the questions concerning liability, what damages, if any, do you award, as damages are explained in Final Jury Instructions Nos. 4 and 5?
A. The amount, if any, reasonably paid in settlement of Mr. Hoag's lawsuit against Land O' Lakes

$ _________________
B. The amount, if any, reasonably paid in attorneys' fees and expenses in defending the lawsuit brought by Mr. Hoag against Land O' Lakes



$ _________________
Final Question Do you find that, in defending, then settling, Mr. Hoag's claim against Land O' Lakes, MSI was protecting a real or supposed right or interest of its own?

__ Yes


__ No




Date: ________________ Time: ________________





_______________________________

Foreperson

_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror