JOE MILLITELLO AND AMERICAN MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
REATHER GUEST, 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.
The court affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that disclosure of insurance policy limits to the jury did not constitute reversible error or result in an improper "insurance verdict" under the criteria established in Futch v. Josey and Stecher v. Pomeroy.
Disclosure of defendant's liability insurance policy limits to the jury does not constitute reversible error when the record does not demonstrate that such disclosure influenced the jury or resulted in an improper insurance verdict.
[1] Disclosure of liability insurance policy limits to a jury does not constitute reversible error absent evidence that such disclosure influenced the jury's verdict or resul…
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 intelligenceA jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff Guest against defendant Millitello. During trial, the limits of the defendant's liability insurance covera…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
This case has been remanded back to us, on certiorari granted by the Florida Supreme Court,1 for reconsideration of our prior decision2 in the light of that court’s subsequent opinion in Stecher v. Pomeroy.3
In reliance on our previous holding in Futch v. Josey,4 we had originally reversed the verdict for the plaintiff herein because the limits of the defendant’s liability insurance coverage were disclosed to the jury. Subsequent to the remand hereof the Supreme Court remanded our decision in Futch, supra,5 and elaborated on the “essential consideration” of Stecher, supra.
We have considered the record in the light of the criteria set forth in Futch, as *464they concern themselves with the prejudicial effect of disclosure of policy limits and with the question of whether such disclosure constituted an “influence on the jury,” and conclude that we cannot, as a matter of law, say that disclosure of the policy limits in this case influenced the jury or resulted in an “insurance verdict.”
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Odoms v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1976)…In reversing the judgment because of the trial court’s ruling admitting evidence of policy limits, the decision conflicts with Steeher v. Pomeroy, 253 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1971); Futch v. Josey, 263 So. 2d 240 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); and Millitello v. Guest, 258 So. 2d 463 (Fla.2d DCA 1972). In Maiborne v. Kuntz, supra, a verdict for $10,000 in a malicious prosecution suit was held not to be unreasonable under the circumstances and the order of the trial court requiring a $9,000 remittitur was reversed. In Brickman v…
Authorities Cited
- In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 253 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1971)
- Josey v. Futch, 254 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1971)
- Futch v. Josey, 247 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Reather Guest v. Millitello, 254 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1971)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Int'l Ass'n OF Firefighters v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 254 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1971)
- Millitello v. Reather Guest, 248 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)