In B.M. Co. v. Avery, 2002 Guam 19, the Court stated that the denial of a proposed jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The Court said that a refusal to give an instruction on a cognizable issue for which there was supporting evidence may be an abuse of discretion, and "a trial court's decision to reject a requested instruction will be upheld even where the court could have given an instruction that was of more assistance to the jury, if the instruction actually given accurately and sufficiently instructed the jury of the law to be applied." Id. 34, 36 . "If the instructions advise the jury as to the law it should apply, the court has the discretion to decline to give other instructions even though they may properly state the law to be applied." Id. 34 Thus, Avery provides that the trial court's denial of a jury instruction will be upheld so long as the instructions actually given adequately apprise the jury as to the law it is to apply. In Avery, the Court determined that the trial court erred in rejecting a proposed instruction, where the proposed instruction "adequately encapsulated the law" relating to the crux of a parties' claim, "recited a legally cognizable theory of recovery," and the principle set forth in the proposed instruction was not "substantially covered by any other given instruction," and consequently, the failure to instruct was prejudicial. 2002 Guam 19 35-36