MARTA GARCIA AND LUIS G. GARCIA, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE 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.
The Garcias appealed a jury verdict against them in an insurance policy collection action. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting their arguments that defense counsel's remarks required a mistrial, that certain jury instructions were improper, and that the trial judge should have been disqualified due to a connection to defense counsel.
The court affirmed, holding that (1) any impropriety in counsel's remarks was cured by proper jury instruction and was harmless; (2) no reversible error appeared in the jury instructions or affidavit rulings; and (3) the four-year gap between the campaign and the disqualification motion was too remote in time to support disqualification.
[1] A mistrial is not mandated by defense counsel's opening statement remarks if a proper cautionary instruction cures any impropriety and closing argument remarks are harmle…
[2] Refused jury instructions and complained-of affidavits do not constitute reversible error if no such error is shown.
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“a proper cautionary instruction cured any impropriety in counsel's remarks during opening statement, and (b) counsel's remarks during closing argument were, at worst, harmless in nature”
Establishes that the court found any procedural error in counsel's statements to be either cured by instruction or harmless.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarta and Luis G. Garcia brought an action to collect on an insurance policy against American Income Life Insurance Company. The jury returned a verdi…
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 Cautionary Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Marta and Luis G. Garcia from a final judgment entered upon an adverse jury verdict in an action brought to collect on an insurance policy. We affirm.
First, we are not persuaded that defense counsel’s abbreviated remarks to the jury concerning the motivation for this action mandated a mistrial because (a) a proper cautionary instruction cured any impropriety in counsel’s remarks during opening statement, and (b) counsel’s remarks during closing argument were, at worst, harmless in nature. See Brumage v. Plummer, 502 So. 2d 966, 969 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 513 So. 2d 1062 (Fla.1987); Honda Motor Co. v. Marcus, 440 So. 2d 373, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1984); Decks, Inc. v. Nunez, 299 So. 2d 165, 166-67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert, denied, 308 So. 2d 112 (Fla.1975).
Second, no reversible error is shown concerning the refused jury instructions or the complained-of affidavit. See West Town Plaza Assocs. v. Pines Properties, Inc., 600 So. 2d 477, 478-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Giordano v. Ramirez, 503 So. 2d 947, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Rodriguez v. Haller, 177 So. 2d 519, 520-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Llompart v. Lavecchia, 374 So. 2d 77, 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert, denied, 385 So. 2d 758 (Fla.1980). Finally, no error is shown in the denial of plaintiffs’ post-trial motion to disqualify the trial judge. Plainly, the trial judge did not, as urged, dispute the truth of any of the facts stated in the sworn motion to disqualify. Although defense counsel’s wife was the trial judge’s campaign manager in the judge’s last re-election campaign to the bench, this in itself was not, as urged, a sufficient ground for disqualification under the circumstances of this case. This is so because the subject campaign was four years prior to the motion to disqualify in this case, and, thus, was too remote in time to engender a well-grounded fear by the plaintiffs that they would not receive a fair trial or hearing at the hands of the judge. See Barber v. MacKenzie, 562 So. 2d 755, 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1991) (two-year limit for disqualification after attorney participates in trial judge’s election to bench).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hasegawa v. Anderson, 742 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…uctions in each instance. Given the brief nature of each of these errors, we do [*508] not believe that they were so highly prejudicial that they could not be cured by an immediate cautionary instruction. See Garcia v. American Income Life Ins. Co., 664 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (explaining that a proper cautionary instruction cures counsel’s abbreviated improper remarks). That leaves us with Mrs. Hasega-wa’s testimony that “a young man” yelled and cursed at her after the accident. While this evidence wa…
-
The Neiman-Marcus Grp., Inc. v. Robinson, 829 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ioned.’ ” Id. at 758 (quoting Fla. Sup.Ct. Comm, on Stds. of Conduct Concerning Judges, Op. 84-23 (Oct. 26, 1984)). Here, the relationship was not so remote in time as to dispel any appearance of impropriety. Cf. Garcia v. Am. Income Life Ins. Co., 664 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA [*969] 1995), rev. denied, 673 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1996)(holding that attorney’s wife’s participation in reelection campaign which concluded four years before motion for disqualification was brought was too remote in time to warrant disquali…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Giordano v. Nelson Ramirez, M.D., 503 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Barber v. Honorable Mary Ann MacKENZIE, 562 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Marcus, 440 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Decks, Inc. v. Nunez, 299 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Ravonne Griffin v. State, 374 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Llompart v. Lavecchia, 374 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Corcoran v. State, 502 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Brumage v. Ritchie Plummer, D.O., 502 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Rodriguez v. Haller, 177 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Keene, 308 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1975)