INDUSTRIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY STROUD AND ROBERT STROUD, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The striking of irrelevant expert testimony was harmless error, and a directed verdict was proper, but the attorney's fees award must be reversed for lack of evidence on reasonableness.
Defendant appealed a judgment based on a directed verdict and an award of costs, fees, and interest. The trial court struck the testimony of defendant…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonableness Of Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Industrial Fire and Casualty, appeals a final judgment entered on a motion for directed verdict and a final judgment for plaintiffs awarding costs, attorney’s fees and interest.
The striking of the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness on grounds that there was a failure to comply with a stipulation to produce was error, but the error was harmless because the testimony was totally irrelevant to the issues. The testimony of a second defense witness, relied on to create a factual issue for the jury, was also irrelevant.
The remaining evidence adduced by the defendant presented no conflict with the plaintiffs’ evidence of bad faith defense of an insurance claim, as a matter of law; therefore, a directed verdict at the end of all the evidence was proper. See Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968).
The absence of any testimony that the number of hours devoted to prosecution of the bad faith claim was reasonable requires that the award be reversed and the cause remanded for a new attorney’s fees hearing. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quayside Assocs., Ltd. v. Triefler, 506 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…al partners are indispensable parties to an action against a limited partnership. The cross-appeal must be affirmed. A directed verdict on the fraud claim was correct because there was no evidence of fraud. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co. v. Stroud, 488 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (directed verdict at end of all evidence proper where there was no conflict in evidence or reasonable inferences drawn therefrom); National Car Rental Sys. v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (same). Quayside demonstrated…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1968)