ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
CARROLL WOOD, APPELLEE
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.
Allstate appealed a $175,000 jury verdict in favor of Wood on his uninsured motorist insurance claim, arguing that references to insurance coverage during closing argument improperly influenced the jury. The appellate court affirmed, holding that while insurance references are generally improper, the trial court's curative instruction rendered any error harmless and Allstate failed to demonstrate clear and patent prejudicial error.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Allstate's motion for relief from judgment, new trial, or remittitur, holding that improper references to insurance may be rendered harmless by the trial court's curative instruction, and that Allstate failed to demonstrate clear and patent prejudicial error justifying a new trial.
[1] A reference to insurance coverage in a trial is rendered harmless when the trial court provides a curative instruction to the jury.
[2] A trial court's decision not to grant a new trial due to an improper reference to insurance is presumed correct on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is true that the existence or amount of insurance coverage has no bearing on the issues of liability and damages and should not be considered by the jury.”
Establishes the general rule that insurance coverage information is improper before juries.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWood was injured in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist and sued Allstate under the uninsured motorist provisions of his insurance polic…
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 Trial Court Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Chief Judge.
Wood, claiming coverage under the uninsured motorist (UM) provisions of his poli cy, sued Allstate, his insurance company, for injuries he received in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist. Pursuant to a jury verdict, the trial court entered a final judgment for Wood in the amount of $175,000.00. We affirm the trial court’s order denying Allstate’s motion for relief from judgment or alternatively, motion for new trial or remittitur, and we write only to address Allstate’s contention that Wood improperly injected insurance coverage into the trial proceedings below.
In his closing argument, counsel for Wood argued that Wood had the foresight to protect himself and his family because he purchased UM coverage from Allstate and he analogized buying UM insurance to buying life or health insurance. Counsel for Allstate objected but did not move for a mistrial. The trial court sustained the objection. Later, Wood’s counsel argued that Wood was not asking the jury to take something away from someone else and give it to Wood as Wood had paid full price for his insurance. Again, defense counsel objected, but he did not ask for a mistrial or a curative instruction. The court sustained the objection and nevertheless offered the curative comment that insurance was not the issue, therefore not to inject it into the proceedings.
It is true that the existence or amount of insurance coverage has no bearing on the issues of liability and damages and should not be considered by the jury. Beta Eta House Corp., Inc. of Tallahassee v. Gregory, 237 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1970).
However, reference to insurance may be rendered harmless by the trial court’s curative instruction to the jury. Walt Disney World Co. v. Merritt, 404 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); and Seminole Shell Co. v. Clearwater Flying Co., 156 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1963).
Moreover, the trial court’s decision not to grant a new trial because of the improper reference to insurance comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness.
The trial court has a superior vantage point to determine the effect of such error on the jury, and its ruling will not be disturbed unless it appears clear and patent on the record that prejudicial error occurred. Johnny Roberts, Inc. v. Owens, 168 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1964).
We agree that Allstate has failed to demonstrate clear and patent prejudicial error.
On appeal, Allstate relies on Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Dewberry, 383 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), for reversal. This court’s Dewberry decision is easily distinguishable as there, not only did counsel mention the existence of insurance but also the extent thereof, and the jury returned a verdict in the exact amount of the policy limits which had repeatedly been mentioned throughout the trial proceedings, during voir dire, opening argument and closing argument.
AFFIRMED.
ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mercury Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. Moreta, 957 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…nces to insurance matters in closing argument may be cured by an appropriate instruction to the jury from the trial court. See S. Motor Co. of Dade County v. Accountable Constr. Co., 707 So. 2d 909, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wood, 535 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In several Florida cases, comments similar to those expressed by opposing counsel in this case have been deemed to be curable by an appropriate instruction. See Howell, 901 So. 2d at 879-80; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Buzdigian,…
-
Colford v. Braun Cadillac, Inc., 620 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…er of both the tortfeasor and the underinsured motorist carrier is mandatory in a civil suit initiated by the carrier’s insured when the carrier rejects a settlement offer by the tortfeasor’s liability insurer. In Allstate Insurance Company v. Wood, 535 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), counsel for an insured revealed to the jury twice that his client had purchased underin-sured motorist coverage. The trial court sustained the carrier’s objections to these revelations and made curative comments to the jury. In…
-
Moreland v. State, 253 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beta ETA House Corp. v. Gregory, 237 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1970)
- Seminole Shell Co., Inc. v. Clearwater Flying Co., Inc., 156 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Johnny Roberts, Inc. v. Owens, 168 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Walt Disney World Co. & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Merritt, 404 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Dewberry, 383 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)