the total damage award is excessive because it exceeds the amount requested by the Mans-fields’ counsel during closing argument. The Mansfields asked the jury to award $88,385,260 in total damages. The Hor-ners fail to cite any case law that provides a verdict is excessive if it is more than the award requested by plaintiffs counsel. “Failure to cite relevant authority supporting a point or to explain the failure to do so preserves nothing for review.” Goudeaux v. Bd. of Police Comm’rs of Kansas City, 409 S.W.3d 508, 516 (Mo.App.W.D. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Horners failed to preserve this argument. Even if they had preserved the argument, though, our case law has consistently held that a jury is free to award damages above what is requested. See, e.g., Id. at 521 (<HOLDING>). The Horners’ final argument in its second
holding that to offset a jurys damage award a separate thirdparty insurance award must cover the same loss which served as the basis for the jury award holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set holding damage award immaterial when no liability recognizing the legion of cases where a plaintiff suggests a damage award in a personal injury case during closing only to receive a higher award from the jury