GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
PATRICK N. YVARS
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.
Judgments in uninsured motorist insurance cases may not be entered in an amount exceeding the policy's uninsured motorist liability limits.
[1] Under Fridman v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“judgments in uninsured motorist cases may not be entered in an amount exceeding policy limits”
Court's statement of the controlling legal principle from Fridman and sister court decisions
GEICO, the defendant insurer, appealed a negligence judgment entered in favor of Patrick Yvars, the plaintiff. The trial court excluded GEICO's expert…
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 Negligence Action cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-3281 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-CA-003972-O _____________________________
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,
v. PATRICK N. YVARS, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Heather Pinder Rodriguez, Judge. October 17, 2025
PER CURIAM.
GEICO General Insurance Company (“Appellant”), the Defendant in the negligence action below, seeks reversal of a final judgment entered in favor of the Patrick Yvars (“Yvars”), the Plaintiff and Appellee. Appellant raises two issues— first, that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding its expert witnesses under Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981); and second, that the trial court improperly entered a judgment in an amount exceeding the applicable uninsured motorist insurance policy.
2 We find no error in the trial court’s exclusion of Appellant’s experts under Binger, and we affirm that exclusion without further discussion. We do, however, find merit in the second argument. We agree with the rationale applied by our sister courts in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Finson, 385 So. 3d 196, 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hudnall, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1454, D1454, (Fla. 5th DCA July 3, 2025), both of which concluded that under Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016), judgments in uninsured motorist cases may not be entered in an amount exceeding policy limits. Therefore, we reverse the judgment with instructions that an amended final judgment be entered in Yvars’s favor for the amount of $20,000.00, which is the policy’s uninsured motorist liability limit. In a footnote, the judgment shall also reflect the net verdict amount that Yvars could recover were he to prevail on a bad faith claim against Appellant—$1,367,943.86. See Finson, 385 So. 3d at 196-97; Hudnall, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at D1454. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
STARGEL, NARDELLA and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Sharon C. Degnan, of Kubicki Draper, Orlando, for Appellant.
Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Finson, 385 So. 3d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)