What Is a Remittitur and How Does It Affect Your Case?

A jury award can be challenged when a judge believes the damages are too high under the evidence or applicable law. In many U.S. courts, the judge may use a procedure called remittitur: the plaintiff can accept a reduced award or, in appropriate circumstances, face a new trial on damages. The result can affect the amount a plaintiff recovers, a defendant’s exposure, and the next steps in a case. The rules and deadlines depend on the court and state, so the details matter.

What Is a Remittitur?

A remittitur is a court’s conditional reduction of a jury’s damages award. After a verdict, the judge determines that the award exceeds what the evidence or governing legal standard can support. Rather than simply replacing the jury’s figure, the judge typically gives the plaintiff a choice: accept a lower amount or proceed to a new trial, usually limited to damages.

The term can refer to the reduction itself or to the court order offering that choice. In federal court, the procedure is commonly associated with a defendant’s post-trial motion arguing that the damages are excessive. The precise process, terminology, and standards vary by jurisdiction.

A remittitur does not necessarily mean the jury made an error. It reflects the judge’s conclusion that the award falls outside the range the law permits on the record before the court. The judge must apply the relevant legal standard, not simply substitute a personal view of what the case is worth.

Why Would a Judge Order a Remittitur?

A defendant may argue that a verdict is excessive because it lacks adequate support in the evidence, resulted from passion or prejudice, or is inconsistent with the governing law. Whether any of these grounds is sufficient depends on the case and jurisdiction. A large award alone does not automatically justify remittitur.

Damages can include measurable financial losses, such as medical expenses or lost income, as well as non-economic losses, such as pain and suffering. Some cases also involve punitive damages, which are intended to punish and deter certain misconduct. Each category has distinct legal rules; a remittitur analysis may address one category, several categories, or the total award.

Common arguments raised in a request to reduce damages include:

• Insufficient evidence: The verdict exceeds what the trial evidence reasonably supports.
• Improper calculation: The award may include duplicated damages or losses not established at trial.
• Legal limits: A statute or other applicable rule may cap or restrict a particular type of damages.
• Trial irregularities: A party may contend that improper arguments, evidence, or other events influenced the award.

These are arguments, not automatic grounds for a reduction. A court evaluates the record, the parties’ motions, and the controlling law.

How the Remittitur Process Works

A post-trial challenge

After the jury returns a verdict, a defendant may file a timely post-trial motion challenging the damages award. In federal civil cases, Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for a new trial, including a request based on excessive damages. Federal Rule 59 generally requires a motion to be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment, but other rules, case circumstances, and state procedures can affect deadlines. Parties should verify the applicable rules promptly.

The motion usually explains why the award should not stand and identifies the evidence, legal standards, or alleged trial errors supporting the request. The plaintiff can oppose the motion. The judge may review the trial record, written submissions, and, where appropriate, arguments from counsel.

The judge sets a permitted amount

If the court concludes that the award is excessive, it may determine a maximum amount that could reasonably be supported under the applicable standard. In federal court, courts commonly describe this as reducing the award to the highest amount that the evidence will support, though the precise formulation and method can differ across jurisdictions.

The judge does not usually conduct a new trial to decide the exact damages figure at this stage. Instead, the court offers the plaintiff a choice between accepting the reduced amount and having a new trial on damages. The original verdict may be treated differently depending on the applicable rules and the wording of the order.

The plaintiff decides whether to accept

If the plaintiff accepts the remittitur, the court enters judgment for the reduced amount, subject to other issues such as interest, costs, attorney fees, or an appeal. If the plaintiff rejects it, the court may order a new trial on damages. A retrial may be limited to the amount of damages, but sometimes liability and damages must be retried together—for example, when the issues are too closely connected to separate fairly.

The court’s order should explain the options and any response deadline. A plaintiff’s choice can have major practical consequences: accepting may produce a smaller but more certain judgment, while rejecting may preserve a chance at a larger award but involve further litigation and the risk of a different result.

How Remittitur Affects a Plaintiff

For a plaintiff, remittitur directly affects the potential recovery. The reduced figure may be substantially lower than the jury’s award, and accepting it generally means giving up the original amount in favor of the court-approved judgment. Whether acceptance also affects appellate rights depends on the order, the issues preserved, and the applicable procedural rules.

Rejecting the reduction may lead to a new trial, adding time, expense, and uncertainty. A new jury could award more, less, or no damages, depending on the issues retried and the evidence admitted. A new trial on damages does not necessarily reopen liability, but that depends on whether the court can separate the questions and on the jurisdiction’s rules.

Before deciding, a plaintiff and counsel may assess:

• The difference between the jury award and the remitted amount.
• The strength of the evidence supporting each damages category.
• The likely scope and cost of another trial.
• Whether liability will remain settled or may also be retried.
• Available appellate arguments and filing deadlines.
• Settlement options, collectability, and the time value of continued litigation.

A remittitur decision is case-specific. The plaintiff should understand exactly what the order requires, what a rejection triggers, and whether accepting the reduction waives any claims or appeal options.

How Remittitur Affects a Defendant

For a defendant, remittitur can reduce the amount of a judgment and potentially limit financial exposure. It may also create leverage in settlement discussions. However, a reduced award does not necessarily end the case: the plaintiff may reject the offer, a damages retrial may follow, or either side may pursue an appeal when permitted.

A defendant seeking remittitur generally must support the request with more than disagreement with the jury’s judgment. The motion should connect the challenged amount to the evidence, a governing legal limit, or a recognized procedural problem. The defendant should also consider whether the alleged error affects only damages or could require a broader retrial.

Even after a reduction, other components of the judgment may remain disputed. Depending on the case, those can include prejudgment or post-judgment interest, attorney fees, taxable costs, and the treatment of separate claims or defendants. A remittitur does not automatically resolve these issues.

Remittitur and Additur: The Difference

Remittitur reduces a jury’s damages award conditionally. Additur is the contrasting procedure in which a judge increases an inadequate award, typically by offering the defendant a choice between paying a higher amount and facing a new trial.

The distinction matters because the two procedures do not receive identical treatment under federal constitutional law. In Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935), the U.S. Supreme Court held that additur in federal court violates the Seventh Amendment. Federal courts have continued to recognize remittitur as a permissible procedure when properly used, provided the plaintiff can choose a new trial rather than accept the reduction.

State courts do not all follow the same approach to additur or remittitur. State constitutional provisions and procedural rules can shape what a judge may do. A party should not assume that a rule from federal court applies in state court, or vice versa.

Legal Standards and Important Limits

The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in many federal civil cases and restricts federal judges from reexamining facts found by a jury except under established legal principles. Remittitur is structured as a conditional choice, rather than a judge simply rewriting the verdict: the plaintiff may accept the reduced judgment or seek a new trial.

In Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996), the Supreme Court addressed the review of a damages award in federal court when state law supplied the governing standard. The decision illustrates that federal courts may need to account for state substantive law while following federal procedures. The specific standard can therefore depend on the type of claim, the court, and applicable choice-of-law rules.

Other limits may come from statutory damages caps, rules governing punitive damages, or requirements for preserving an objection. A court may also have to consider whether a verdict is supported by the record as a whole and whether the challenged damages can be separated from other parts of the award.

There is no single nationwide formula for calculating a remittitur. Courts may use different methods to evaluate whether an award is excessive, and state law can differ significantly. Prior verdicts may provide context, but they do not necessarily set a mandatory ceiling for a new case.

Remittitur, Appeals, and New Trials

A remittitur order can be followed by an appeal, but appellate review is governed by jurisdiction-specific rules and deadlines. An appellate court may examine whether the trial judge used the correct legal standard, stayed within the court’s authority, and adequately explained the decision. The trial judge’s assessment of the trial record may receive deference, though the degree of deference and the issues reviewed can vary.

A party generally must preserve relevant objections and comply with procedural requirements before seeking appellate review. Filing an appeal may also affect enforcement of a judgment, but it does not automatically suspend collection in every situation. Bonds, stays, or other requirements may apply.

If the plaintiff rejects the remittitur, the next trial’s scope is important. The court may order a new trial on damages only if damages can be separated from liability without unfairness. If the issues are intertwined, the court may require a broader retrial. The order and applicable law determine what evidence and questions return to the jury.

Practical Questions to Ask After a Remittitur Order

A remittitur order should be reviewed carefully rather than treated as a simple reduction in a dollar amount. The parties should identify the exact award affected, the proposed reduced figure, the deadline to respond, and the consequences of accepting or rejecting the offer.

Because remittitur involves trial procedure and appellate timing, the parties commonly consult an attorney familiar with the relevant court’s rules. A lawyer can explain the order’s scope, evaluate the evidentiary basis for the reduced amount, and help assess the practical risks of accepting the reduction, pursuing another trial, or appealing.

Key Takeaways About Remittitur

• A remittitur is a conditional reduction of a jury’s damages award when a judge finds the amount excessive under the applicable legal standard.
• The plaintiff is generally offered a choice between accepting the reduced award and seeking a new trial, subject to the court’s rules and order.
• Accepting can provide greater certainty but may reduce recovery; rejecting can lead to further litigation and an uncertain outcome.
• Federal and state procedures differ, and deadlines can be short.
• Remittitur is distinct from additur, which seeks to increase an award and is constitutionally barred in federal court under Dimick v. Schiedt.

Sources: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59; Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935); Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996). Court rules and controlling state law should be checked for the specific case.