MAINE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM R. RASER, 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.
An insurance company appealed a jury verdict in favor of a policyholder who sued for benefits under a disability income insurance policy. The insurer claimed the policyholder committed fraud and misrepresentation by failing to disclose prior rejections for similar insurance. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error.
The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on voir dire, evidence admission, jury instructions, or attorney's fees. The requested jury instructions were not made part of the appellate record, precluding review of that issue, and the attorney's fee award was supported by expert testimony and the difficulty of the case.
[1] An appellate court will not consider refused jury instructions if they are not made a part of the record on appeal.
[2] An award of attorney's fees is within the trial court's discretion when supported by expert testimony, the complexity of the case, time expended, and the amount involved.
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 intelligence“We have examined the record in the light of appellant's points one through five inclusive and find that reversible error has not been demonstrated.”
Establishes that the appellate court found no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on voir dire and evidentiary matters.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaine Insurance Company issued a disability income insurance policy to William Raser. Raser sued for benefits under the policy. The insurance company …
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 Voir Dire Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant-appellant, insurance company, suffered an adverse jury verdict and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appel-lee, its policyholder. These appeals are from (1) the final judgment, (2) the order taxing costs and (3) the order assessing attorney’s fees. We have consolidated the appeals for argument and disposition here. The appellee sued the appellant claiming under a disability income insurance policy issued to him. The appellant defended upon the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation by the appellee in that he had failed to reveal upon the application prior rejections for the same type of insurance. Other defenses were pleaded but the one set forth is the only one important to this decision.
Appellant has presented eight points on appeal. The first point urges error upon limitations imposed by the trial judge upon certain questions asked prospective jurors on voir dire examination. The second, third, fourth and fifth points urge error upon rulings in the admission or rejection of evidentiary items during the trial of the cause. Appellant’s points six and seven urge error upon the failure of the court to give requested instructions. Point eight urges that the trial court abused its discretion in fixing the amount of attorney’s fees awarded plaintiff’s attorney.
We have examined the record in the light of appellant’s points one through five inclusive and find that reversible error has not been demonstrated. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Ganey, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 576.
Appellant’s points six and seven contends that the trial judge committed reversible error in denying defendant’s requested jury instructions eight, nine, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and eighteen. These requested instructions are not made a part of the record on appeal. We are therefore unable to determine if the court committed reversible error in refusing to give the requested instructions. Cf. Morgan v. Marshall, 78 Fla. 59, 82 So. 609 (1919); Crawford v. State, 86 Fla. 94, 97 So. 288 (1923).
The eighth point directed to the amount of the attorney’s fee allowed pursuant to § 627.0127, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., is also without merit. The trial judge held an evidentiary hearing and heard the testimony of the expert witnesses offered. The amount of the fee is within the range of the expert testimony and is supported by the long and difficult trial, the testimony as to the time expended and the amount involved. City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 109.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gregory v. Gregory, 289 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ich apply these principles and affirm orders or judgments below because of insufficient records must number in the hundreds. In many instances, e. g., Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. King, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 294; Maine Ins. Co. v. Raser, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 163; Reichek v. Fla. Bond & Mortgage Co., Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 83, cert. denied, Fla.1970, 240 So. 2d 644, it would seem that any arguable obstacle to a consideration of the case on its merits caused by the non-existence of documents or portions of…
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Vordermeier, 415 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…reasonable value of the legal services received by Vordermeier and the Vordermeier Company at anywhere from $35,000 to $225,000, we cannot conclude that the lower court’s award of $75,000 in attorney’s fees was in error. See Maine Ins. Co. v. Raser, 240 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). The lack of any direct contractual relationship between Vordermeier, the Vordermeier Company, and Fireman’s Fund does not present any bar to the statutory award of attorney’s fees. Cf. Prygrocki v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins.…
-
Nicholson v. Hosp. Corp. OF Am., 725 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…uested jury instruction on proximate cause. The requested instruction is not in the record, a flaw which renders us unable to determine whether the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to give the instruction. Maine Ins. Co., v. Raser, 240 So. 2d 163, 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Appellants seek to avoid this hurdle by telling us, in their brief, the substance of the requested instruction. That is neither an accepted nor acceptable practice. Nonetheless, we are constrained to comment, albeit by way o…
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
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Ganey, 125 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Morgan v. Marshall, 78 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1919)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Cummings, 228 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Crawford v. State, 86 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1923)