AMANDA MYRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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 held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court without clear and convincing evidence of an unconscionable scheme.
[1] Dismissal of a complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court requires a showing by clear and convincing evidence of an unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere wit…
[2] An appellate court gives less deference to a trial court's ruling when the ruling is based on a cold document record without witness testimony.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sued for uninsured motorist benefits. The trial court dismissed her complaint with prejudice due to alleged discrepancies between her discov…
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 Uninsured Motorist Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLACE, Judge.
Amanda Myrick, the plaintiff in an action for uninsured motorist benefits against Direct General Insurance Company, appeals the circuit court’s order that dismissed her complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court. We reverse the circuit court’s order, and we remand this case for further proceedings.
The circuit court decided to dismiss Ms. Myrick’s complaint with prejudice because of alleged discrepancies between her discovery responses and the evidence developed by Direct General in its investigation of her claim. No witnesses testified at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. The circuit court reached its decision based on Ms. Myrick’s interrogatory answers, her deposition, medical records, and a videotape. Because we have the same cold document record before us for review that the circuit court had, we give its ruling less deference than if it had heard witness testimony. See Jacob v. Henderson, 840 So. 2d 1167, 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
It would not add anything to the jurisprudence of this state to detail Ms. Myr-ick’s discovery responses and the matters relied on by Direct General to show inconsistencies. It is sufficient to say that Direct General failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Myrick had “sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Id. at 1169 (quoting Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)); see also Laschke v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 872 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reaffirming the stringent standard adopted in Jacob concerning the level of misconduct necessary to justify the extreme sanction of dismissal). For this reason, the circuit court abused its discretion in imposing the extreme sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sonny Ramey and Vicky Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., Inc., 993 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…he trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense. See also Miller v. Nelms, 966 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Howard v. Risch, 959 So. 2d 308, 310-311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Myrick v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co., 932 So. 2d 392, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Laschke v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 872 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). A trial court’s decision concerning whether to dismiss a case for fraud on the court is subject to review under the abuse of discretion standard.…
-
Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…onvincing evidence of a scheme calculated to evade or stymie discovery of facts central to the case. This will almost always require an evidentiary hearing. See Howard v. Risch, 959 So. 2d 308, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Myrick v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co., 932 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Medina v. Fla. East Coast Ry., 866 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Jacob v. Henderson, 840 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Simmons v. Henderson, 745 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Furst v. Blackman, 744 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1…
-
Hannelore Kubel v. SAN Marco Floor & Wall, Inc., 967 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…awsuit,’ courts must reserve such strong medicine for instances where the defaulting party’s misconduct is correspondingly egregious.” Id. at 1118. See also Howard v. Risch, 959 So. 2d 308, 310-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Myrick v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co., 932 So. 2d 392, 392-93 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Here, San Marco failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of an “unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trie…
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
- COX v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Jacob v. Cal Henderson, 840 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Laschke v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 872 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)