ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA EDENFIELD, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Permanent Injury Threshold cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
REVERSED. We believe the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial after a jury had determined that the appel-lee did not sustain a permanent injury within the meaning of Florida’s tort claim statute, section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Our review of the record reflects the existence of conflicting evidence on this issue, including conflicting medical expert opinions. The appellee contends that the medical expert, relied upon by the appellant to contest appellee’s claim of permanent injury, testified only as to permanent impairment, and conceded on cross-examination that other physicians might be in a better position to evaluate appellee’s injury. We believe a fair reading of the expert’s testimony would permit a jury to conclude that the appellee would not suffer permanent effects from her automobile accident. Under such circumstances, the jury, as the trier of fact, should be permitted to resolve the issue. McNair v. Davis, 518 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
ANSTEAD, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. ORR, 660 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…was ambiguous and uncertain as to the lasting effects; in Laberge v. Vancleave, 534 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 545 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1989), there was conflicting testimony by the expert witnesses; in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Edenfield, 543 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), there was conflicting evidence on the issue of permanence; and in Powell v. Napolitano, 578 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), there was medical testimony that could be perceived as being in conflict. We know no reason why the law…
-
Jarrell v. Churm, 611 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…th DCA), dismissed, 365 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1978). Additionally, the issue of permanency of an injury is ordinarily one to be decided by the jury. See, e.g., Colvin v. Williams, 564 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Edenfield, 543 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Laberge v. Vancleave, 534 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 545 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1989); Tripp v. Killam, 492 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Martin v. Young, 443 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). However, the…
-
Emanuele v. Perdue, 693 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…her automobile accident, his testimony on cross-examination that the TMJ surgery is “rateable as a permanent impairment” was in effect a concession as to permanency as a result of the accident. We disagree. As in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Edenfield, 543 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), “we believe a fail’ reading of the expert’s testimony would permit a jury to conclude that the appellee did not suffer permanent effects from her automobile accident.” As such, the jury, as the trier of fact, should have been pe…
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
- Marjane McNAIR v. Donato A. Davis, 518 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)