ROBERT BURNETT FUTCH, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
TAYLOR JOSEY ET AL., APPELLEES
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 Florida Supreme Court remanded this case to clarify whether the disclosure of insurance policy limits to the jury constituted harmful error. The appellate court reconsidered its prior holding and concluded that the disclosure of policy limits, while objectionable, did not necessarily influence the jury's verdict or result in an insurance-based verdict.
The disclosure of insurance policy limits was not necessarily harmful error as a matter of law. On examination of the trial record, the court could not definitively establish that the disclosure of policy limits influenced the jury or resulted in an insurance-based verdict. The verdict of $143,152.00 was fair and just given the serious nature of the plaintiff's injuries.
[1] The introduction of insurance policy limits into evidence is not automatically harmful error as a matter of law, but is a factual question to be determined by a review of…
[2] A court must review the specific facts and circumstances of a case to determine whether the disclosure of insurance policy limits constituted harmful error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 introduction into evidence of the policy limits of insurance coverage was not necessarily harmful error as a matter of law but was a factual question to be determined by a review of the record in each case”
Establishes the legal standard from Stecher that policy limit disclosure requires case-by-case analysis rather than per se reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo vehicles were involved in an accident; one insured by American Fire and Casualty Company with minimum coverage of $10,000, and another insured by …
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 Factual Question For Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
This case has been remanded back to us on certiorari granted by the Florida Supreme Court1 for reconsideration and clarification of our prior decision2 in light of that court’s subsequent opinion in Stecher v. Pomeroy.3
In Stecher our Supreme Court held that the introduction into evidence of the policy limits of insurance coverage was not necessarily harmful error as a matter of law but was a factual question to be determined by a review of the record in each case. In our prior decision we stated that in this case it was harmful error but did not elaborate on the facts in the record which made such disclosure harmful. On remand our Supreme Court requested us to clarify where and in what way the record shows that harmful error was committed.
In the instant case there were two insurance carriers involved as defendants which *241insured two separate vehicles involved in the accident, the drivers of which were named as defendants and charged with negligence. The owners of the vehicles were also named as defendants.
One vehicle insured by American Fire and Casualty Company carried the minimum insurance of $10,000. The other vehicle insured by Security Insurance Company of Hartford carried a maximum liability of $250,000. Over the objection of Security, American was permitted to introduce its minimum limits of $10,000. The minimum policy of American was not introduced by the plaintiff Josey but by American itself and over the objection of Security.
The plaintiff successfully introduced Security’s limits of $250,000 over objection of Security. At first blush this seemed prejudicial to Security in that from the evidence adduced at trial the jury might well have believed that American’s insured driver was primarily at fault in causing the accident in which Josey was injured.
However, after a careful review of the voluminous record in the light of the criteria set forth in Stecher and the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case, we have reconsidered our prior holding and conclude that we cannot as a matter of law say that the disclosure of the policy limits influenced the jury or resulted in an insurance verdict. The plaintiff Josey was seriously injured and the verdict of $143,152.00 is a fair and just verdict. The jury found by its verdict that all of the defendants were chargeable for the total amount of the verdict and we cannot say that the jury assessed the amount of damages based on the $250,000 limit covered by Security’s policy.
In accordance with the directive of the Supreme Court, we are returning the record in this cause to it for further proceedings.
MANN and McNULTY, 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)…; and Maiborne v. Kuntz, 56 So. 2d 720 (Fla.1952); and (2) 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 cour…
-
Pierce v. Smith, 301 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…hy predicated upon economic disparity. Tampa Transit Lines v. Corbin, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 10; Seaboard Airline Ry. Co. v. Smith, 53 Fla.375, 43 So. 235 (1907). . Futch v. Josey, Fla.App.2d, 1971, 247 So. 2d 491. . Futch v. Josey, Fla.App.2d, 1972, 263 So. 2d 240.…
-
Josey v. Futch, 279 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1973)…Cause dismissed. 263 So. 2d 240.…
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)