ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
VICKI S. CLARK, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Allstate Indemnity Company appeals a trial court's grant of a new trial on damages in an uninsured motorist case, while Clark cross-appeals the denial of her motion for new trial on liability. The court reverses the new trial on damages, finding the jury verdict was not inconsistent simply because it awarded medical expenses but denied pain and suffering damages.
A jury verdict awarding medical expenses while denying pain and suffering damages is neither inconsistent nor inadequate as a matter of law if there is conflicting evidence regarding intangible damages. The trial court was therefore precluded from granting a new trial on the ground of verdict inconsistency.
[1] A jury verdict awarding medical expenses but denying damages for pain and suffering or other intangibles is not inconsistent if there is conflicting evidence regarding th…
[2] A new trial on damages is improper when the jury's verdict is not inconsistent and there is conflicting evidence regarding intangible damages.
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“Though a jury finds a plaintiff entitled to medical expenses in a given cause, it is free to simultaneously conclude that the plaintiff has suffered no compensable damages for pain and suffering or other intangibles, if there is evidence to support that conclusion.”
Establishes the legal principle that medical expenses and intangible damages are separate issues that a jury may decide independently.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 29, 1993, Clark collided with an unidentified phantom truck in an intersection. Clark filed a claim under her Allstate uninsured motorist p…
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 Pain And Suffering Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The appellant/cross-appellee, Allstate Indemnity Company, appeals an order which grants the appellees/cross-appellant, Vicki S. Clark, a new trial on the issue of damages in this case involving uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for the negligence of a phantom truck driver. Clark cross appeals the denial of her motion for new trial on the issue of liability. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting Clark a new trial on damages and reverse the order entered in that regard. We affirm, without discussion, the denial of Clark’s motion for new trial on the issue of liability.
On January 29, 1993, Clark was maneuvering her vehicle through an intersection when she collided with a tractor-trailer. Clark was insured by Allstate at the time. Because Clark could not identify the truck or its driver after the accident, she filed a claim with Allstate under the UM provision of her automobile policy, alleging a variety of permanent soft-tissue injuries and anxiety-related ailments arising from the accident. When Allstate denied the claim, Clark instituted an action for damages against it. After a trial, the jury found that the legal cause of Clark’s injuries was the seventy-five percent negligence of the phantom truck driver and the twenty-five percent comparative negligence of Clark.
The jury also determined that Clark was entitled only to the unreim-bursed portion of the medical expenses she had already incurred as a result of the accident. It specifically concluded, however, that she was not entitled to future medical expenses or to damages, past or future, for “pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect, [or] loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.”
Thereafter, Clark filed a motion for new trial, asserting, as two separate grounds, that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the verdict was otherwise inconsistent, in that it erroneously awarded her the remainder of her unreimbursed medical expenses without awarding her any intangible damages. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting Clark a new trial on “damages only,” finding that the verdict was inconsistent in that regard. Allstate timely appealed, and Clark cross appealed.
Though a jury finds a plaintiff entitled to medical expenses in a given cause, it is free to simultaneously conclude that the plaintiff has suffered no compensable damages for pain and suffering or other intangibles, if there is evidence to support that conclusion. See City of Miami v. Smith, 165 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1964); Smith v. Houston, 551 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Fitzgerald v. Molle-Teeters, 520 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Thus, a verdict which fails to award pain and suffering damages, despite awarding medical expenses for injuries arising out of an accident, is neither inconsistent nor inadequate unless the evidence of intangible damages is entirely uncontroverted. See Een v. Rice, 637 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Daigneault v. Gache, 624 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
In the instant case, the record shows there was indeed conflicting evidence on the issue of pain and suffering and other intangible damages. For that reason, the trial court was precluded, as a matter of law, from granting Clark a new trial on the basis that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent with respect to damages. Based on the foregoing, the order granting Clark a new trial on damages is reversed. The denial, of Clark’s motion for new trial on the issue of liability is affirmed.
Reversed on appeal; affirmed on cross appeal.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. Griffith, 971 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ce pain and suffering as a result of an accident, a zero award for pain and suffering is inadequate as a matter of law”) (quoting Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc. v. Stassinopoulos, 731 So. 2d 708, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)); cf. Allstate Indem. Co. v. Clark, 736 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that a verdict that fails to award noneconomic damages, despite awarding economic damages for injuries arising out of the accident, is “neither inconsistent nor inadequate unless the evidence of intangible damages is e…
-
Garrett v. Miami Transfer Co., Inc., 964 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…J., dissenting) (noting that under the majority’s decision, an award of future palliative care does not require an award of future pain and suffering damages, even though such award indicates at least some future pain); Allstate Indem. Co. v. Clark, 736 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (where evidence was disputed as to need for future medical expenses and future pain and suffering, court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for additur/new trial); Gebis v. Oaks Condo. Ass’n, 937 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 4th…
-
Francis-Harbin v. Sensormatic Elecs., LLC, 254 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…rom the subject accident, a motion for new trial or additur, upon a verdict awarding damages for past medical expenses but no damages for past pain and suffering, is left to the broad discretion of the trial court). In Allstate Indem. Co. v. Clark, 736 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), our sister court upheld a verdict in which the jury awarded damages for past medical expenses, but awarded no damages for future medical expenses, or for past or future pain and suffering. In affirming, the Second District noted:…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Smith, 165 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1964)
- Fitzgerald v. Molle-Teeters, 520 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Daigneault v. Gache, 624 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Smith v. Houston, 551 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Carriage Homes AT Terra MAR Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. The Kennedy Grp., Ltd., 637 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- EEN v. Rice, 637 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)