What is remittitur in a personal injury case?

Remittitur is a court order that reduces a jury’s damage award the judge finds excessive. In most systems, the plaintiff is given a choice: accept the lower amount, or reject it and go through a new trial on damages. The judge cannot simply force the reduced figure on the plaintiff without offering that choice in most jurisdictions.

Can a judge increase a jury verdict?

Some state courts allow additur, where the judge offers the defendant a choice between paying a higher amount or facing a new trial when the award is inadequate. Federal courts generally do not allow additur, because increasing a jury’s award has been held to conflict with the constitutional right to a jury trial in federal civil cases. In federal court, the usual remedy for an inadequate award is a new trial.

What is a JNOV or renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law?

It is a request asking the judge to enter judgment for one side despite the jury’s verdict, on the ground that no reasonable jury could have reached that result on the evidence presented. Federal courts call it a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, and many states still use the older name, judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The standard is demanding and such motions are often denied.

When does an injured person actually get paid after winning at trial?

Often not right away. Post-trial motions, any reductions from damage caps or remittitur, and possible appeals can delay payment by months or longer. If the defendant appeals and posts a bond, collection is usually paused until the appeal ends, although interest may continue to build depending on the jurisdiction.

Why do cases settle after a verdict?

A verdict changes the bargaining position of both sides, but neither side is certain what will survive post-trial motions and appeal. Settling can give the plaintiff money sooner and with certainty, while the defendant avoids the risk of the full judgment plus interest and further legal costs. Many post-verdict settlements are negotiated at a discount from the judgment that reflects that risk.

Remittitur, Additur, and Post-Trial Motions: How an Injury Verdict Can Change After the Jury Speaks, and When You Get Paid

Many people assume that when a jury announces its verdict, the case is over and the money follows. In reality, the verdict is often the start of a new phase. Before a verdict becomes a final, collectible judgment, either side can ask the trial judge to change it, throw it out, or order a new trial. Statutory damage caps may cut it down. And an appeal can delay payment for a long time.

This guide explains the post-trial tools that can change an injury verdict: the motion for new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, remittitur and the plaintiff’s choice, additur, damage caps, appeal bonds, timing, and what all of this means for when an injured person actually gets paid and how post-verdict settlements work.

It is general education only. Procedures, deadlines, and standards differ between federal and state courts and among the states.

Verdict versus judgment: why the difference matters

A verdict is the jury’s decision on the questions put to it: whether the defendant is liable, the percentage of fault if fault is compared, and the amount of damages in each category.

A judgment is the court’s formal order that turns the verdict into an enforceable legal obligation. In between, the judge may apply legal adjustments, such as:

Reducing damages by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault under comparative negligence.
Applying statutory caps on certain types of damages.
Subtracting credits for amounts already paid by other settling defendants, where state law allows.
Adding interest, costs, or other amounts allowed by law.

Then, after judgment is entered, the post-trial motion period begins. The number the jury announces and the number that is eventually paid can be quite different. Understanding that gap early helps you keep realistic expectations and make better decisions in the months that follow.

The motion for new trial

A motion for new trial asks the judge to set aside the verdict and hold the trial again, either entirely or on certain issues such as damages only. Either side may file one.

Common grounds include:

**The verdict is against the weight of the evidence.** The judge may conclude the result is seriously out of line with the evidence, even though some evidence supported it.
**Excessive or inadequate damages.** An award may be so high or so low that it appears driven by passion, prejudice, sympathy, or a misunderstanding of the instructions.
**Legal errors at trial.** Examples include admitting evidence that should have been excluded, excluding important evidence, or giving incorrect jury instructions.
**Misconduct.** Improper arguments by a lawyer, juror misconduct, or contact between jurors and outsiders can justify a new trial.
**Newly discovered evidence.** Evidence that could not reasonably have been found before trial and would likely change the outcome.
**Inconsistent verdicts.** Answers on the verdict form that cannot logically be reconciled with each other.

Trial judges usually have more freedom on a new trial motion than on a motion for judgment, because they are not taking the case away from a jury, only sending it to another one. Even so, judges generally give considerable respect to the jury’s role and do not grant new trials simply because they would have decided differently.

A new trial on damages only is a common middle path. If liability was clearly established but the award appears flawed, the court may keep the liability finding and order a second jury to decide only the amount. Some courts are cautious about this when liability and damages are closely intertwined, because a fair second trial may require the new jury to hear both.

JNOV and the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict, often shortened to JNOV, asks the judge to enter judgment for the losing side despite the jury’s verdict. In federal court and in many states that follow the federal model, the same tool is called a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.

The standard is strict. The judge does not weigh evidence or decide which witnesses are more believable. Instead, the question is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the side that won the verdict, any reasonable jury could have reached that result. Only if the answer is no can the judge override the jury.

Some practical points:

**It usually must be preserved.** In federal court and many state courts, a party generally must have moved for judgment as a matter of law **during** trial, typically before the case went to the jury, in order to renew the motion afterward. Missing that earlier step can forfeit the right to the post-trial motion.
**Defendants use it most often.** A defendant might argue there was no legally sufficient evidence of negligence, causation, or a particular category of damages, such as future lost earnings.
**Plaintiffs can use it too.** A plaintiff may argue that the evidence of liability was so overwhelming that no reasonable jury could find otherwise, though this is less common.
**It is often paired with a new trial motion.** Parties typically file both together, asking for judgment first and a new trial in the alternative. If the judge grants judgment, the court may also rule conditionally on the new trial motion, so the appeals court has both decisions to review.
**It can target part of a verdict.** A motion might attack only one category, such as punitive damages, leaving the rest of the award in place.

Because the standard is demanding, these motions are frequently denied. But when they succeed, they can erase a verdict entirely, which is why both sides treat them seriously.

Remittitur: reducing an excessive award, and the plaintiff’s choice

Remittitur is a tool judges use when they believe a damage award is excessive but that liability was properly decided.

Rather than ordering a new trial outright, the judge identifies the highest amount the evidence reasonably supports and gives the plaintiff a choice:

**Accept the reduced amount**, and the case moves forward to judgment at that figure, or
**Reject the reduction**, and the court orders a new trial, usually on damages only.

This choice matters because the right to a jury trial means that, in most systems, a judge cannot simply substitute their own number for the jury’s. Offering the plaintiff a new trial preserves that right.

How judges decide whether an award is excessive

Standards differ, but courts often ask whether the award:

Shocks the conscience of the court.
Is clearly beyond the range supported by the evidence.
Appears to result from passion, prejudice, or sympathy rather than the evidence.
Deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.

Some courts compare the award with awards in similar cases, while others focus mainly on the evidence in the case at hand. Noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, are the most frequent target, because they are harder to measure against bills and wage records. Economic damages tied to documented medical expenses and earnings are usually harder to attack, though projections of future losses can be challenged.

Deciding whether to accept a remittitur

Choosing between a reduced award and a new trial is one of the most important decisions an injured person may face after trial. Factors include:

**Certainty versus risk.** A second jury could award more, the same, or less. Depending on the order, it might even revisit issues beyond damages.
**Time and stress.** A new trial means more delay, more preparation, and possibly testifying again about painful experiences.
**Cost.** Expert witnesses and trial preparation are expensive, and those costs often come out of the recovery.
**Appeal rights.** In some jurisdictions, a plaintiff who accepts a remittitur may lose or limit the ability to appeal the reduction. In others, there are procedures to accept under protest, or the plaintiff may cross-appeal if the defendant appeals. These rules are technical and vary widely.

This is a decision to make with your attorney, who can weigh the strength of the evidence, the trial judge’s reasoning, and the realistic range of a second verdict.

Additur: increasing an inadequate award, and the federal rule

Additur is the mirror image of remittitur. When a jury’s damage award is inadequate, for example when it fails to cover undisputed medical bills or ignores a clearly proven injury, a judge in some systems may offer the defendant a choice:

**Agree to pay a higher amount** set by the court, or
**Face a new trial**, usually on damages.

Several state courts allow additur, either by court rule, by statute, or because their state constitutions are interpreted to permit it. Other states do not.

In federal court, the rule is different. Federal courts generally do not allow additur. The US Supreme Court long ago concluded that increasing a jury’s damage award in a federal civil case conflicts with the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, while remittitur, with its option of a new trial, was treated as permissible. In federal court, a plaintiff who receives an inadequate award usually asks for a new trial, often limited to damages.

The practical effect is that the same inadequate verdict may be handled differently depending on whether the case was tried in state or federal court, and in which state. That is one of many reasons the choice of court can matter long before trial begins.

Damage caps applied after the verdict

Many states have statutory caps on certain categories of damages in certain types of cases. Examples include caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice claims, limits on punitive damages, and limits on claims against government entities.

Key points about how caps interact with verdicts:

**Juries are often not told about caps.** In many states, the jury awards what it believes is fair, and the judge then reduces the award to the cap when entering judgment.
**Caps apply automatically, not by discretion.** Unlike remittitur, the reduction is a legal requirement, so there is usually no choice of a new trial.
**Order of calculations matters.** Whether the cap is applied before or after reducing for comparative fault, and how it applies with multiple defendants or claimants, depends on state law and can significantly change the final figure.
**Constitutional challenges.** In some states, caps have been challenged under the state constitution, and courts have reached different results. The status of a particular cap can change over time.
**Punitive damages limits.** Separate from statutory caps, courts review punitive awards against constitutional due process limits, which can lead to further reductions.

For injured people, the takeaway is that a headline verdict may never be the amount collected if a cap applies. Asking about caps before trial helps you understand the realistic ceiling of your case.

Timing: how long post-trial motions take

Post-trial motions run on strict deadlines. In federal court, motions for a new trial and renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law generally must be filed within a short period after judgment is entered, measured in weeks rather than months. State deadlines vary and can be even shorter. Missing a deadline can forfeit the motion entirely.

A typical sequence looks like this:

**Verdict is returned** by the jury.
**Judgment is entered**, often after the court applies fault reductions, caps, credits, and interest.
**Post-trial motions are filed** within the deadline.
**Responses and replies** are filed by the other side.
**The judge rules**, sometimes after a hearing. This can take weeks or months depending on the court’s schedule and the complexity of the issues.
**If remittitur or additur is ordered**, the affected party decides whether to accept or take a new trial.
**The appeal clock starts**, usually running from the ruling on the last post-trial motion.

Filing certain post-trial motions often pauses the deadline to appeal until the motion is decided, which is one reason the order of events matters so much.

Appeals and appeal bonds

After post-trial motions are decided, either side can generally appeal. Appeals focus on legal errors, not on retrying the facts, and appellate courts usually defer to the jury on questions of credibility and weight.

For the injured person, the most important practical concept is the appeal bond, sometimes called a supersedeas bond.

**Why it exists.** Once judgment is entered, the winning plaintiff can usually begin collecting. A defendant who wants to appeal without paying in the meantime typically must post a bond or other security to **stay** enforcement.
**What it covers.** The bond is commonly set at an amount meant to cover the judgment plus some measure of interest and costs, so the plaintiff is protected if the appeal fails. Many states have rules about how the amount is set, and some limit the size of bonds in certain cases.
**Why it matters for payment.** While a bond is in place and the appeal is pending, the plaintiff usually cannot collect. Once the appeal is resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, the bond provides a source of payment.
**Insurers and bonds.** When a defendant is insured, the insurer often handles the bond process. Whether the policy covers amounts above its limits becomes important if the judgment exceeds coverage.

Appeals can take a year or more depending on the court. Interest may continue to accrue on the judgment during that time under state or federal rules, which adds pressure on defendants to resolve the case.

When the injured person actually gets paid

Putting it all together, the path from verdict to money can look like this:

**If no post-trial motions or appeals are filed**, the judgment becomes final and payment is usually arranged, often through the defendant’s insurer, after the time to appeal expires.
**If post-trial motions are filed and denied**, payment may wait until the appeal deadline passes or until an appeal is resolved.
**If remittitur is accepted**, payment follows at the reduced figure, subject to any appeal.
**If a new trial is ordered**, there is no judgment to collect until the second trial ends.
**If an appeal is filed with a bond**, collection is usually paused until the appeal ends.
**If the defendant is uninsured or underinsured**, collection may require enforcement steps against assets, such as liens or wage garnishment where allowed.

Even after money is received, liens, attorney fees, and case costs are typically paid from the recovery before the injured person receives the net amount. Health insurers, government benefit programs, and medical providers may have repayment rights that need to be resolved, and negotiating those can take additional time.

Negotiating a post-verdict settlement

Many injury cases settle after the verdict but before an appeal is decided. This can surprise people, but it is common for good reasons.

Why settlement makes sense for both sides:

The plaintiff gets money **sooner** and with **certainty**, avoiding the risk of a reversal, a new trial, or a reduced award.
The defendant avoids the risk of paying the **full judgment plus continuing interest**, and saves the cost of an appeal.
Both sides avoid more time, expense, and uncertainty.

Factors that shape a post-verdict settlement:

**Strength of the post-trial and appeal issues.** If the defense has a serious legal argument, the plaintiff may accept a larger discount. If the issues are weak, the defense may pay closer to the full amount.
**Insurance limits.** Where the verdict exceeds policy limits, the insurer’s exposure, the defendant’s personal assets, and potential claims about how the insurer handled earlier settlement offers can all affect negotiations.
**Interest accrual.** The longer an appeal will take, the more interest may build, which increases pressure on the defendant.
**High-low agreements.** Sometimes parties agree, before or during trial or appeal, on a minimum and maximum payout regardless of the outcome. These limit risk for both sides.
**Structured payments.** Some post-verdict settlements are paid over time rather than as a lump sum, which can have tax and planning implications.
**Mediation.** Some appellate courts run mediation programs that encourage parties to settle while the appeal is pending.

A step-by-step checklist after an injury verdict

If you have just received a verdict in your injury case, these steps can help you understand what comes next:

**Ask your attorney for the expected timeline.** Find out the deadlines for post-trial motions and appeals in your court.
**Understand the adjustments.** Ask whether comparative fault, damage caps, credits, or interest will change the judgment amount.
**Expect motions.** Assume the other side may file for a new trial, JNOV, or remittitur, and ask how strong those arguments are.
**Prepare for a remittitur decision.** If one is possible, discuss in advance how you would weigh a reduced award against a new trial.
**Ask about appeal bonds.** If the defense appeals, find out whether a bond will be posted and how it protects you.
**Track interest.** Learn how interest accrues on the judgment in your jurisdiction and during any appeal.
**Get a net recovery estimate.** Ask for an estimate of liens, fees, and costs so you understand what you will actually receive.
**Consider settlement offers carefully.** Weigh any post-verdict offer against realistic outcomes rather than the headline verdict.
**Avoid spending based on the verdict.** Until the judgment is final and paid, the amount can change.
**Keep communicating.** Stay in close contact with your attorney, and ask questions about anything you do not understand.

Common myths about post-trial motions and verdicts

"The verdict is the final amount." Not necessarily. Caps, comparative fault reductions, remittitur, and appeals can all change it.

"A judge can just lower the award without giving me a choice." In most systems, a judge reducing an award through remittitur must offer the plaintiff a new trial instead. Statutory caps are different, because they apply automatically.

"The judge can raise an award in any court." Additur is allowed in some state courts but is generally not allowed in federal court, where the remedy for an inadequate award is a new trial.

"Post-trial motions are just a formality." They are a real opportunity to change the outcome, and if a party fails to preserve or file them on time, it may lose important rights.

"If the defendant appeals, I lose." An appeal does not mean the verdict will be overturned. Many verdicts are affirmed. The appeal mainly affects timing and leverage.

"Settling after winning means I gave up." A post-verdict settlement is often a smart risk decision that secures payment and avoids years of uncertainty.

Key takeaways

A jury **verdict** becomes a collectible **judgment** only after legal adjustments and the post-trial motion period.
A **motion for new trial** can set aside a verdict for errors, misconduct, or awards against the weight of the evidence, sometimes on damages only.
**JNOV**, or a **renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law**, overrides a verdict only if no reasonable jury could have reached it, and usually must be preserved during trial.
**Remittitur** reduces excessive awards, but the plaintiff generally gets the choice of a new trial. **Additur** is allowed in some states but **generally not in federal court**.
**Damage caps** apply automatically after the verdict, and **appeal bonds** typically pause collection while an appeal is pending.
Payment can take months or longer, and many cases **settle after the verdict** to trade some value for certainty. Speak with a licensed local attorney about your situation.

*This guide is general information for educational purposes and is not legal advice. Court rules, deadlines, and damage laws vary by state and federal jurisdiction and change over time.*