BEVERLY TUCKER, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLSTATE 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.
Beverly Tucker appeals a judgment in her uninsured motorist claim against Allstate Insurance Company arising from a 1994 automobile accident. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by admitting collateral impeachment evidence regarding a March 2000 incident in which Tucker altered an accident report to explain her absence from work.
The trial court erred in admitting the March 2000 incident as evidence because it had no relevance to the issues being tried and served only to impeach Tucker's credibility and reflect poorly on her character, in violation of Florida's Evidence Code. The error was not harmless.
[1] Evidence of prior misconduct is inadmissible if it has no relevance to the issues being tried and serves only to impeach a party's credibility and reflect poorly on their…
[2] A pretrial motion in limine preserves an issue for appeal when the issue is raised and argued unsuccessfully before trial, and the trial court indicates its prior ruling…
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“it was error for the trial court to admit evidence of 'incidents [which] served only to impeach [the defendant's] credibility and character in a manner not permitted by Florida's Evidence Code'”
Establishes that impeachment evidence not permitted by the Evidence Code is improper, citing Markowski precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTucker was involved in a 1994 automobile accident with Thomas Savopoulos. In March 2000, Tucker gave her employer an altered version of the 1994 accid…
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 Florida Evidence Code cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Beverly Tucker appeals a final judgment in favor of her uninsured motorist carrier, Allstate Insurance Company, in her suit to recover damages arising out of a 1994 automobile accident between Tucker and Thomas Savopoulos.1 Because we agree with Tucker’s contention that the trial court erred in allowing Allstate to introduce collateral impeachment evidence, we reverse for a new trial.2
Tucker argues that the trial court erred in allowing Allstate to cross-examine her with evidence that in March 2000 she gave her employer the 1994 accident report, after she had altered the date to reflect a recent accident, and used the report to falsely explain her absence from work. We agree that the March 2000 incident was erroneously admitted because it had no relevance to the issues being tried and served only to impeach Tucker’s credibility and reflect poorly on her character. See §§ 90.608-.610, Fla. Stat. (2001); Markowski v. Attel Bank Int'l Ltd., 758 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that in suit by bank to collect on promissory note, it was error for the trial court to admit evidence of “incidents [which] served only to impeach [the defendant’s] credibility and character in a manner not permitted by Florida’s Evidence Code”); DeSantis v. Acevedo, 528 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding that in negligence action against roofing company, it was error to permit cross-examination of plaintiff concerning incidents of misconduct during plaintiffs employment with police department that were only marginally, if at all, relevant to facts of case).
Allstate argues that Tucker has not preserved this issue for review. Tucker raised and unsuccessfully argued the issue in a pretrial motion in limine. During opening statements, Allstate’s counsel began discussing the March 2000 incident. Tucker’s counsel objected, to which the trial court responded, “The Court’s prior ruling will stand.” Under these circumstances, we agree with Tucker that the issue was adequately preserved. See Webb v. Priest, 413 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (stating that where issue was raised both pretrial and in the early stage of trial, plaintiff was not required “to renew objection each time in what would have been an obviously futile gesture”). Finally, we reject Allstate’s alternative assertion that the error was harmless.
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur. . Thomas Savopoulos, an original defendant, was dismissed from the suit prior to trial.
. We find no merit in Tucker’s second issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harmon v. State, 854 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…esn’t need to say it. All right.” Since the court had already ruled the statement inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant, it would have been futile, and even discourteous, for counsel to belabor the issue at that point. See Tucker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 842 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that under the circumstances of the court’s former rulings, the issue for review was adequately preserved); Layman v. State, 728 So. 2d 814, 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“The contemporaneous objections rule is satisfied under…
Authorities Cited
- Webb v. Priest, 413 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- DeSANTIS v. Acevedo, 528 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Markowski v. Attel Bank Int'l, Ltd., 758 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)