Remittitur and Additur in Utah: How Courts Correct Excessive and Inadequate Verdicts

A jury verdict is the jury’s factual determination — and courts are reluctant to override it. But jury discretion on damages is not unlimited. When a damages award is so disproportionate to the evidence that it cannot be permitted to stand, Utah’s procedural rules provide two corrective tools that avoid the cost and delay of a full new trial: remittitur and additur.

These remedies sit at the intersection of post-trial motion practice and appellate strategy. They arise under URCP Rule 59, they shape the appeal that follows, and understanding them is essential for any litigant on either side of a damages dispute.

---

What Is Remittitur?

Remittitur is a procedure by which a trial court reduces a jury’s damages award that it finds excessive. Rather than granting a full new trial on damages, the court offers the verdict winner a choice: accept a reduced damages figure set by the court, or face a new trial on damages alone.

The name comes from the Latin remittere — to send back. Historically, the amount by which the plaintiff agreed to reduce the verdict was “remitted.” Modern usage refers to the court order reducing the award.

Remittitur is not a punishment for winning. It is the court acting as a check on a jury that awarded more than the evidence could support — keeping the outcome within the range the law allows while preserving the plaintiff’s underlying right to recover.

---

What Is Additur?

Additur is the inverse of remittitur: the court increases a damages award it finds inadequate. The court offers the defendant a choice: agree to pay the court-set increased amount, or face a new trial on damages.

This distinction matters more than it might seem, because Utah and federal law diverge significantly here:

Federal courts cannot use additur. The Seventh Amendment’s right to jury trial prohibits federal courts from substituting a judge’s damages determination for the jury’s when the plaintiff has won. Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935), established this rule, and it remains good law.

Utah state courts are not bound by this limitation. Utah’s constitution and civil procedure rules permit additur in appropriate cases. A plaintiff who received an inadequate jury award in Utah district court may seek additur as an alternative to a full new trial on damages — without the federal constitutional obstacle.

---

The Governing Ground: URCP Rule 59(a)(5)

Both remittitur and additur arise from the “excessive or inadequate damages” ground under URCP Rule 59(a)(5). A motion asserting this ground must:

• Be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment — the same non-extendable deadline governing all primary post-trial motions. See our post-trial deadlines guide.
• Identify specifically why the award is excessive or inadequate — not just that the moving party disagrees with it
• Connect the award’s deficiency to the evidence: what did the evidence show, and how does the verdict depart from it?

---

The Legal Standard: Shocks the Conscience

Utah courts apply a “shocks the conscience” standard when evaluating whether a damages award justifies remittitur or additur. The award must be so disproportionate to the injury — so far outside the range of what the evidence could reasonably support — that allowing it to stand cannot be reconciled with the judicial function of ensuring fair outcomes.

This is a demanding standard, and intentionally so. Courts are reluctant to second-guess jury determinations on damages — the jury heard the evidence firsthand, assessed credibility, and applied community standards of compensation. The “shocks the conscience” test reflects that deference: not every large or small award is wrong, only those so extreme that they reveal passion, prejudice, or a fundamental disconnect from the evidence.

In evaluating whether an award shocks the conscience, Utah courts examine:

• The nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries
• Medical expenses, past and future
• Pain and suffering evidence, including its duration and severity
• Loss of income, earning capacity, and career trajectory
• Life expectancy and the projected duration of effects
• Comparable verdicts in similar cases (though courts use this cautiously — verdicts vary, and dissimilar cases provide limited guidance)
• Whether the award resulted from passion, prejudice, or a misunderstanding of the damages instructions

---

How Courts Set the Remitted or Additur Amount

When remittitur is appropriate, the trial court must set a reduced amount representing the maximum the evidence could support — not the amount the court would have awarded, or what it considers most appropriate, but the ceiling of what the evidence makes reasonable.

This standard has appellate significance: a remittitur order that simply announces a reduced figure without articulating how the evidence supports that amount is itself vulnerable to reversal. The trial court must show its work.

For additur, the court sets the minimum the evidence required — the floor below which the verdict cannot reasonably fall given the plaintiff’s proven damages.

In both cases, the court must give the affected party a genuine, meaningful choice: accept the adjusted figure, or proceed to a new trial on damages. The choice must be real — courts cannot reduce an award to an amount so low that no reasonable plaintiff would accept it as an alternative to trial, or increase it to an amount so burdensome that no reasonable defendant could agree.

---

The Verdict Winner’s Strategic Choice on Remittitur

When the court grants remittitur and offers the plaintiff the choice between the reduced award and a new trial on damages, the decision requires careful analysis:

Accept the reduced award: Faster resolution, no retrial risk, immediate finality. The reduced amount is locked in and cannot be attacked by the opposing party’s appeal (though the plaintiff can still appeal if the reduction was improper).

Elect a new trial on damages: Preserves the chance of a higher award, but introduces retrial risk — a new jury might award less than the remitted amount. The strength of the damages evidence at retrial, the credibility of the key medical or economic witnesses, and the general damages climate in the jurisdiction all factor into this analysis.

Most plaintiffs accept remittitur in practice. The certain recovery of a reduced amount typically outweighs the risk of a new jury awarding even less.

---

Appellate Review of Remittitur and Additur

The Utah Court of Appeals reviews remittitur and additur rulings for abuse of discretion. Because trial courts are in the best position to assess the evidence presented to the jury and gauge whether the award reflects that evidence, appellate review is deferential.

An appellate court will not second-guess a remittitur order unless:

• The trial court set the reduced amount without adequate evidentiary support — announcing a number without explaining how the evidence justifies it
• The court failed to give the plaintiff a meaningful election between the remitted amount and a new trial
• The standard applied was not “shocks the conscience” but some lower (or improperly defined) threshold
• The remittitur was imposed on an award the evidence could support, meaning the court exceeded its discretion by reducing what was within the legitimate range

If the remittitur was improperly ordered, the appellate court may reinstate the original verdict — not grant a new trial. If the amount set by the court was itself too low but the reduction was otherwise appropriate, the appellate court may remand for the trial court to recalculate.

The relationship between the remittitur ruling and the underlying damages instruction is also relevant: if the jury was given an erroneous damages instruction — permitting recovery for categories not legally compensable, or excluding categories the law requires — the right remedy may not be remittitur but a new trial on damages with corrected instructions. These are distinct arguments, and distinguishing them sharpens both the post-trial motion and the appeal. For more on damages instruction errors, see our post on harmless error in Utah appeals.

---

KEY RULE

The Remittitur Standard and URCP Rule 59(a)(5)

A Utah trial court may reduce (remittitur) or increase (additur) a jury’s damages award when the award is so disproportionate to the evidence that it “shocks the conscience.” The motion must be filed within 28 days of judgment under URCP Rule 59(a)(5). When remittitur is granted, the court sets the maximum amount the evidence supports and must give the plaintiff a genuine choice between the reduced amount and a new trial on damages. Appellate review is for abuse of discretion — the court’s evidentiary analysis and the adequacy of the plaintiff’s election are the primary appellate flash points.

---

Evaluating Whether Remittitur or Additur Applies to Your Case

The threshold question is whether the award — high or low — is outside the range the evidence could reasonably support, by enough to meet the “shocks the conscience” standard. That is a judgment call that requires careful review of the trial record: the medical evidence, the economic damages testimony, the plaintiff’s credibility, and the instruction the jury was given.

Lotus Appellate Law assists Utah trial counsel in evaluating remittitur and additur options, drafting Rule 59 motions targeting excessive or inadequate verdicts, and managing the appellate consequences of damages rulings. Contact us to discuss whether the damages verdict in your case presents a viable post-trial challenge.