DANIEL LEE SWANSON, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, FRANK SWANSON, DONNA PAULINE SWANSON AND FRANK ROBERT SWANSON, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., ETC., GERALD LEE PINDER, DOROTHY LEE PINDER, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mary Carter Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon review and due consideration of the appellate issues we are of the opinion that the record on appeal reflects several errors, the totality of which warrant the granting of a new trial. In particular, admission into evidence of a Mary Carter agreement in a modified and excised form and later referred to by counsel as a “secret agreement” was prejudicial and contrary to the holdings in Imperial Elevator Co., Inc. v. Cohen, 311 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); General Portland Land Development Co. v. Stevens, 291 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Weinstein v. National Car Rentals, 288 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973). Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial or such other proceedings as may be consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MAGER, C. J., ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
27TH Ave. Gulf Serv. Ctr. & Wilfred Gibson v. Smellie, 510 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ant Gulf agrees that the settlement between Gibson and Gulf is a Mary Carter Agreement but disagrees that it is subject to characterization before the jury as collusive or otherwise improper. Gulf relies on Swanson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 349 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Appellant Gibson disagrees with Gulf that the Gibson-Gulf settlement is a Mary Carter agreement. He contends the agreement is an ordinary settlement which was not admissible as evidence. A true Mary Garter Agreement is “basical…
-
Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Sloan, 432 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…ts primarily cite three cases, two from the Supreme Court and a third from this [*134] court. See Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973), Maule Industries, Inc. v. Rountree, 284 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1973); and Swanson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 349 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Discussing the two Supreme Court cases first, it is true that both apparently contemplate introduction of the complete agreement. However, we do not perceive that those holdings forever mandate only complete Mary Carter agreeme…
Authorities Cited
- Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1973)
- Bethel v. State, 288 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Judy Burke (Hall) v. Burke, 291 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Hamalainen v. MacLEAN, 291 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Imperial Elevator Co., Inc. v. Cohen, 311 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)