HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
DEBORAH ALBURY
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.
Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company appealed a jury verdict in favor of insured Deborah Albury, arguing that opposing counsel violated the 'golden rule' by urging jurors to use common sense and recall Hurricane Irma's destruction when evaluating expert testimony. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the insurer's motion for mistrial, holding that calling upon jurors' personal experience and common sense does not constitute an improper golden rule violation.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the mistrial motion, holding that urging jurors to use their common sense and personal experience is not an improper golden rule argument. The court reasoned that while golden rule arguments improperly asking jurors to place themselves in a party's shoes are prohibited, jurors have the right to use their own common sense and experience to evaluate expert testimony.
[1] An attorney's closing argument asking jurors to apply their common sense and personal experience in evaluating expert testimony does not violate the golden rule and does…
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 intelligenceThe case involved a dispute between an insurer and its insured regarding an insurance claim, with expert testimony presented by both sides. During clo…
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 Golden Rule Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 16, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D23-1890 Lower Tribunal No. 20-24242 ________________ Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company,
Appellant,
vs.
Deborah Albury,
Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Russo Appellate Firm, P.A. and Elizabeth K. Russo, for appellant. Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, PL, Paul B. Feltman, Quintana Law, P.A., and Brittany Quintana Marti, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ. MILLER, J.
Appellant, Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the insurer, appeals from a final judgment rendered following a jury verdict in favor of appellee, Deborah Albury, the insured. On appeal, the insurer contends the insured’s counsel violated the “golden rule” in closing argument when he urged the jurors to use their common sense and recall the destruction caused by Hurricane Irma in considering the persuasiveness of the insurer’s expert testimony. While it is a longstanding tenet that arguments “suggest[ing] to jurors that they put themselves in the shoes of one of the parties” are improper because they encourage “the jurors to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence,” Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Zapata, 601 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), it is equally established that “calling upon the personal experience of the jurors . . . is not asking them to place themselves in the position of the [litigant],” Grushoff v. Denny’s, Inc., 693 So. 2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).1 Further, jurors are not “bound to accept the opinion of [one side]’s expert witness[], but ha[ve] a right to use their own common sense and 1 See also Shaffer v. Ward, 510 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“The unobjected-to comments made by defendant’s counsel in this case were not in any way directed to damages. Rather, as indicated by counsel in his statements immediately prior to the comments cited by the trial court, they were an attempt to ask the jury to use their common, everyday experience in deciding the case.”).
experience and to draw all reasonable inferences from the physical facts and occurrences.” See Behm v. Div. of Admin., State Dep’t of Transp., 292 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (quoting Seaboard Sur. Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of Montgomery, 263 F. 2d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 1959)).2 We therefore reject the assertion that the argument was so highly prejudicial and inflammatory that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial and affirm the order under review.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Arnulfo Zapata, 601 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Evors v. Bryan, 77 Fla. 399 (Fla. 1919)
- Behm v. Division OF Administration, 292 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 106 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Kenna Grushoff v. Denny's, Inc., 693 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Shaffer v. Ward, 510 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Seaboard Sur. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank OF Montgomery, 263 F.2d 868 (5th Cir. 1959)