Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion for new trial grounded on insured’s improper arguments and questioning of insurer’s litigation manager that shifted focus inappropriately to insurer’s claims handling and bad faith, which were not issues before the jury — New trial also warranted by highly prejudicial and inflammatory comments made by insured’s counsel in closing argument improperly denigrating insurer’s defenses — Remand for new trial — Although insured’s counsel’s references to insured’s payment of premiums during opening statement and closing argument may have been improper and irrelevant to dispute at issue, whether objected-to comments alone were so highly prejudicial and inflammatory as to warrant new trial when viewed in context of counsel’s argument as whole is questionable
43 Fla. L. Weekly D1513a
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index