UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY AND MASCRETE, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE SUPPLY COMPANY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a directed verdict entered against defendant USF & G at pretrial conference, holding that such severe sanction requires willful and flagrant disregard of court orders and that pretrial statements cannot substitute for trial on the merits.
A directed verdict in plaintiff's favor cannot be imposed for defense counsel's failure to comply with court orders absent evidence of willful and flagrant disregard of the court's authority, and statements at pretrial conference cannot substitute for trial on the merits.
[1] A directed verdict as sanction for procedural noncompliance requires evidence of willful and flagrant disregard of court authority rather than mere failure to comply with…
[2] Statements and evidence presented at pretrial status conference cannot substitute for trial on the merits or support entry of directed verdict on court's own motion.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“a directed verdict in plaintiff's favor is too severe a sanction to impose for defense counsel's failure to comply with court orders absent evidence that the lack of compliance was in wilful and flagrant disregard of the court's authority”
Court explaining the standard for imposing sanctions via directed verdict
USF & G failed to submit a memorandum on jury trial entitlement, failed to appear at pretrial conference, and made certain statements through counsel …
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 On The Merits cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company [USF & G] appeals the entry of final judgment on the court’s own motion at pretrial conference. The trial court relied on several reasons for its final judgment: USF & G’s failure to submit a memorandum setting forth its entitlement to jury trial; USF & G’s failure to. appear at pretrial conference; and the statements proffered by counsel during a pretrial status conference. These grounds are insufficient to justify the entry of a final judgment against USF & G: 1) a directed verdict in plaintiff’s favor is too severe a sanction to impose for defense counsel’s failure to comply with court orders absent evidence that the lack of compliance was in wilful and flagrant disregard of the court’s authority, Paris Int’l Records & Filmworks, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 539 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Aller v. Editorial Planeta, S.A., 389 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); 2) statements of counsel and evidence produced at a pretrial status conference are not substitutes for a trial on the merits and do not permit the court to direct a verdict on its own motion. See Lombard v. Executive Elevator Serv., Inc., 545 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); but see Sharpe v. Sentry Drugs, Inc., 505 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (distinguished in Lombard). We therefore reverse the final judgment and remand for trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nautical Mgmt. Ass'n, Inc. v. Culmer, 573 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…consistent with a willful and blatant disregard for the court’s authority so as to justify the harsh sanction of dismissal. See Blanco v. Allstate Ins. Co., 561 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. State Supply Co., 548 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Herr, 539 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Paris Int’l Records & Filmworks, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 539 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). [*1044] Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- Aller v. Editorial Planeta, S.A., 389 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Lombard v. Executive Elevator Serv., Inc., 545 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Paris Int'l Records & Filmworks, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 539 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Sharpe v. Sentry Drugs, Inc., 505 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)