VIJAY S. MAIYA, MANURU S. MAIYA, AND ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHELLE KENNEDY, 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.
This case involved an appeal concerning an insurance policy's uninsured motorist coverage limits. The appellate court affirmed most of the lower court's decisions but remanded the case for a new hearing specifically on the issue of establishing the policy limits.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in not requiring Allstate to properly establish its policy limits by the greater weight of the evidence. The court also held that Allstate's motion to interview a juror was untimely and that the jury instructions were not confusing.
[1] An insurer must establish its uninsured motorist policy limits by the greater weight of the evidence, which may include testimony of the insured or other witnesses able t…
[2] A motion to interview a juror is untimely if not filed within the time limits prescribed by rule.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We remand to the trial court for a new hearing where Allstate shall be required to establish its policy limits by the greater weight of the evidence, which may include the testimony of the insured or other witnesses able to authenticate the actual policy or the introduction of business records through the testimony of a “custodian or other qualified witness.””
Establishes the court's holding regarding the need for proper evidence to determine policy limits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties agreed to resolve the uninsured motorist coverage limits after the trial. Allstate Insurance Company appealed several aspects of the trial…
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 Authentication Of Business Records cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The parties stipulated that the policy limits of Allstate Insurance Company’s uninsured motorist coverage would be resolved after the trial. We remand to the trial court for a new hearing where Allstate shall be required to establish its policy limits by the greater weight of the evidence, which may include the testimony of the insured or other witnesses able to authenticate the actual policy or the introduction of business records through the testimony of a “custodian or other qualified witness.” § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (1997); see Jackson v. State, 738 So. 2d 382, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1457 (Fla. 4th DCA June 23, 1999).
We affirm on all other aspects of the case. Allstate’s motion to interview a juror was untimely. See Beyel Bros., Inc. v. Lemenze, 720 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 737 So. 2d 550 (Fla.1999); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.431(h).
The record does not demonstrate good cause to avoid the time limits of the rule; the grounds asserted for the juror interview were derived from a search of Allstate’s own records and there was no reason offered, by proffer or otherwise, why the search could not have been conducted within the time limits of the rule. See United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Bellefeuille, 723 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 729 So. 2d 396 (Fla.1999).
The short time limit of Rule 1.431(h) implements “the strong public policy against allowing litigants either to harass jurors or to upset a verdict by attempting to ascertain some improper motive underlying it.” Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97, 100 (Fla.1991). Allstate did not preserve its objection to the failure to give a jury instruction on future medical expenses. Nothing about the jury instructions was confusing or misleading, so that the jury might reasonably have been misled. See Mogavero v. State, 744 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the neurologist to offer his opinion or in the denial of the post-trial motions.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DELL, STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1991)
- Gernard Jackson v. State, 738 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Beyel Bros., Inc. v. Lemenze, 720 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Mogavero v. State, 744 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Bellefeuille, 723 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)