ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JUAN M. FLORES, 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.
Allstate appeals a trial court's order granting a new trial in a personal injury case arising from a vehicle accident. The appellate court affirms, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the jury verdict contrary to the manifest weight of evidence regarding the necessity of diagnostic testing.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial. Because no evidence was presented that the diagnostic tests performed were unreasonable or unnecessary to determine whether the accident caused plaintiff's injuries, the trial court properly applied the controlling precedent from Sparks-Book requiring recovery for reasonable diagnostic testing expenses.
[1] An appellate court must apply the reasonableness test to determine whether a trial judge abused discretion in granting a new trial.
[2] An appellant faces a heavy burden to establish that a trial court's abuse of discretion in granting a new trial is clear from the record.
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“At a minimum, the plaintiff was entitled to recover for those medical expenses incurred for necessary diagnostic testing which [were] reasonably necessary to determine whether the accident caused her injuries.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that plaintiffs may recover for reasonable diagnostic testing expenses, cited from Sparks-Book precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 2006, plaintiff's vehicle was struck from behind at a Miami intersection. Nine days later, plaintiff sought medical attention and underwen…
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 Reasonableness Test For Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”), appeals from an order granting the plaintiff, Juan M. Flores (“the plaintiff’), a new trial. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we affirm.
In November 2006, the plaintiffs vehicle was struck from behind while he was stopped at a Miami intersection. Nine days later, the plaintiff sought medical attention, which included a series of diagnostic tests. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued Allstate, his underinsured motorist insurance carrier. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on liability, and the matter proceed to a jury trial on damages.
The jury determined that the accident was not a legal cause of any injuries to the plaintiff and awarded zero damages. The trial court granted the plaintiffs subsequent motion for a new trial, finding that the jury verdict was “contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence that plaintiff required some reasonable diagnostic testing.” This appeal followed.
“When reviewing the order granting a new trial, an appellate court must recognize the broad discretionary authority of the trial judge and apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion.” Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 497-98 (Fla.1999). In such a case, the appellant faces a “heavy burden,” and must establish that the trial court’s abuse of discretion is “clear from the record.” Id. at 496; see Castlewood Int’l Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520, 522 (Fla.1975) (holding that there must be a strong showing to upset an order granting a new trial, a heavy burden rests on those seeking to overturn such an order, and any abuse of discretion must be patent from the record).
In granting the plaintiff a new trial, the trial court relied on Sparks-Book v. Sports Authority, Inc., 699 So.2d 767, 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In Sparks-Book, this Court reversed an order denying the plaintiffs motion for a new trial, holding that “[a]t a minimum, the plaintiff was entitled to recover for those medical expenses incurred for necessary diagnostic testing which [were] reasonably necessary to determine whether the accident caused her injuries.” Id. Allstate correctly notes that there was record evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the plaintiffs injuries were not caused by the subject accident. However, no evidence was presented that any of the diagnostic tests that were performed were not reasonable or necessary to determine whether the accident caused the plaintiffs complained-of *96injuries. Thus, we agree with the trial court that Sparks-Book controls.1
Accordingly, because Allstate cannot establish that the trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiff a new trial was unreasonable, or point to a patent abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. v. Gables Ins. Recovery (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Rupert B. Brown v. The Est. OF A.P. Stuckey, Sr., 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999)
- Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. LaFLEUR, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1975)
- Sparks-Book v. The Sports Auth., Inc., 699 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Rosalba Mora v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Plana v. Sainz, 990 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)