PAMELA BOOKER, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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 judgment against a PIP benefits claimant because an irrelevant jury instruction regarding the option to waive PIP benefits and sue the negligent party instead could have misled the jury and prejudiced the plaintiff's right to a fair trial.
A jury instruction stating that a plaintiff has the option to waive PIP benefits and collect from the negligent party is reversible error when it has no relevance to the issues actually tried and could mislead the jury.
[1] A jury instruction on a correct legal principle is reversible error if it is irrelevant to the issues tried and could mislead the jury or prejudice a party's right to a f…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePamela Booker, the plaintiff, claimed personal injury protection benefits under her mother's automobile insurance policy against Allstate Insurance Co…
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 Substantial Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, the plaintiff in a suit claiming personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under her mother’s automobile insurance policy, appeals from an adverse final judgment following a jury verdict which found that the plaintiff materially failed to cooperate with the appellee, the insurer, resulting in substantial prejudice to the appellee. We reverse.
We find error in one of the three issues raised by the appellant concerning the conduct of the trial. The trial judge gave the jury the following instruction:
You are instructed the plaintiff (Pamela Booker) was under no obligation to make a claim for personal injury protection benefits. Under Florida law, Pamela Booker has the option of waiving benefits available from a personal injury protection policy and collecting the entire amount from the negligent party.
The foregoing instruction is a correct statement of the law, but it had no relevance to the issues tried in this case. We agree with the appellant that the giving of this instruction, under the facts of this case, could have misled the jury or prejudiced the appellant’s right to a fair trial. See American National Bank v. Norris, 368 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 342 (Fla.1979).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Am. Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville v. Norris, 368 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)