KAREN FELTZIN AND OAK CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARC BERNARD, 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 court affirmed the judgment regarding damages and attorney's fees related to the expert witness cross-examination, but reversed the order granting attorney's fees against Oak Casualty.
Appellants challenged restrictions on cross-examination of an expert witness and the admission of deposition testimony. Oak Casualty also appealed an …
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 Cross-Examination Of Expert Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Karen Feltzin and Oak Casualty Insurance Company, (Oak Casualty), appeal a final judgment of damages and attorney’s fees. They argue that the trial court impermissibly restricted their cross-examination of one of plaintiffs expert witnesses and improperly allowed the reading of irrelevant and prejudicial portions of an Oak Casualty adjuster’s deposition into evidence. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err on the cross-examination issue and that, even if the reading of the deposition was error, it was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment entered below.
Oak Casualty additionally argues that the trial judge erred by entering an order granting attorney’s fees against it. Before addressing this issue we note that Oak Casualty played a dual role in this case as both Feltzin’s liability insurer and Bernard’s uninsured motorist carrier. Prior to trial Bernard served a demand for judgment upon defendant Feltzin for the sum of $10,000, pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1995). No demand for judgment was made against Oak Casualty, Felt-zin’s liability insurance carrier. In fact, counsel for Bernard acknowledged during the motion for attorney’s fees that Oak Casualty was not a party to the motion for attorney’s fees against Feltzin. Accordingly, we conclude that the order granting attorney’s fees against Oak Casualty must be reversed. Our ruling is without prejudice to the assertion of any bad faith claims which may exist.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Djuana Garvey Sparks v. Barnes, 755 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…e Barnes argues that the nonjoinder statute (section 627.4136) authorizes her to join Oak Casualty in the judgment obtained against Sparks, we find no language in the non-joinder statute that convinces us accordingly. The case of Feltzin v. Bernard, 719 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), while not “on all fours,” is extremely persuasive. In that case, Oak Casualty was also involved both as the liability insurer for the alleged tortfeasor Feltzin and the plaintiff Bernard’s uninsured motorist carrier. Oak Casualty…
-
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hollingsworth, 157 So. 3d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ty’s insurer when the insurer was not a party to the litigation and was not served with the proposal for settlement. See Meyer v. Alexandre, 772 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Sparks v. Barnes, 755 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Feltzin v. Bernard, 719 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Notably, this Court has not ad [*367] dressed this subject, and — for the reasons that follow — it need not do so in this ease. Meyer, Sparks, and Feltzin are all clearly distinguishable. Unlike the instant case, none of those c…
-
Staci Lee Meyer v. Cleomene Alexandre, 772 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…not recover attorney’s fees against a liability insurer, which was not a party, under the offer of judgment statute. Sparks v. Barnes, 755 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We agree with the reasoning of Sparks and affirm. See also Feltzin v. Bernard, 719 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . The judgment obtained by plaintiffs in this case was in excess of the policy limits.…