CHRISTINA AILEEN AND LIONEL SAMUELS
v.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
A party waives any challenge to a verdict form by consenting to or failing to object to the form before it is submitted to the jury.
[1] A party waives the right to challenge the form of a verdict submitted to a jury by consenting to the form or failing to object to it at the charge conference.
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“The fault should not be laid upon the trial judge; rather, it must be placed upon the [appellant's] trial attorney who led the court into error by approving, or failing to object to, the form of the verdict before it was submitted to the jury.”
The court cited Bachman v. Oliveros to support the waiver principle.
Appellants challenged a verdict form at trial, the trial court rejected their proposed form as too confusing and submitted its own form, and appellant…
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 Waiver Of Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants challenge a final judgment after a jury trial, contending that the verdict form submitted to the jury was improper. After the trial court rejected appellants’ verdict form as too confusing, the trial court proposed its own form at the charge conference. Appellants did not object and suggested minor changes. After a verdict and judgment in appellee’s favor, appellants challenged the verdict form as incomplete. However, by consenting or failing to object, appellants waived any challenge to the form. See Bachman v. Oliveros, 293 So. 3d 555, 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“The fault should not be laid upon the trial judge; rather, it must be placed upon the [appellant’s] trial attorney who led the court into error by approving, or failing to object to, the form of the verdict before it was submitted to the jury.”) (alteration in original) (quoting Keller Indus., Inc. v. Morgart, 412 So. 2d 950, 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)).
Affirmed. WARNER, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
2
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Gainesville v. Rodgers, 377 So. 3d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…n deciding whether a verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of evidence). “A jury’s verdict is generally not against the manifest weight of the evidence if the record shows conflicting testimony from two or more witnesses.” Bachman v. Oliveros, 293 So. 3d 555, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (quoting Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp., 113 So. 3d 985, 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)); see also National Healthcorp Ltd. P’ship v. Cascio, 725 So. 2d 1190, 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). For a verdict to be against the manifest weight…
-
Angeles-Delgado v. Benitez (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…y verdict is appropriate only in the absence of conflicting evidence, when there is no rational basis in the evidence to support the verdict.”); City of Gainesville v. Rodgers, 377 So. 3d 626, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (quoting Bachman v. Oliveros, 293 So. 3d 555, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“A jury's verdict is generally not against the manifest weight of the evidence if the record shows conflicting testimony from two or more witnesses.”); Graham Companies v. Amado, 305 So. 3d 572, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (sam…
Authorities Cited
- Keller Indus., Inc. v. Morgart, 412 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- JEB Bachman v. Oliveros, 293 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)