Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 9, 2016 by admin

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Damages — Award of damages for future medical expenses was excessive, and court should have granted motion for remittitur

41
Fla. L. Weekly D2715a
Top of Form

Insurance
— Uninsured motorist — Damages — Award of damages for future medical
expenses was excessive, and court should have granted motion for remittitur —
Because treating physician testified as to insured’s yearly cost of future
medical expenses, but there was no testimony regarding insured’s life
expectancy, case is remanded for new trial solely on issue of insured’s life
expectancy

GENERAL
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY a/k/a GEICO, Appellant, v. LAURI ISAACS, Appellee.
4th District. Case No. 4D15-2263. December 7, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit
Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol-Lisa
Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 10-21549-18. Counsel: Sharon C. Degnan of
Kubicki Draper, Orlando, for appellant. Kenneth D. Cooper, Fort Lauderdale, for
appellee.

(KLINGENSMITH,
J.) Lauri Isaacs suffered injuries due to a car accident. She filed suit
against GEICO, her uninsured motorist carrier, seeking compensation for past
and future medical expenses as well as pain and suffering. At trial, Isaacs was
awarded a total of $750,000 for medical expenses and pain and suffering. After
a reduction of $60,000 in collateral source setoffs, judgment was entered for
$690,000. This amount included an award for future medical expenses of
$360,000. GEICO moved post-trial for remittitur and for a new trial, arguing
the jury’s award for future medical expenses was excessive and belied by the
manifest weight of the evidence. Based on our review of the record, the motion
for remittitur as to the award for future medical expenses should have been
granted.

“The
standard of review for an order denying a motion for new trial or denying a
remittitur is abuse of discretion.” Whitney v. Milien, 125 So. 3d 817,
819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). While most personal injury verdicts involve an element
of speculation subject to jury discretion, a court may review their discretion
and reduce the award if “shown to be clearly arbitrary.” Arnold v. Sec.
Nat’l Ins. Co.
, 174 So. 3d 1082, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Sproule
v. Nelson
, 81 So. 2d 478, 481 (Fla. 1955)). In that regard, “[a] court
cannot allow a jury to award a greater amount of damages than what is
reasonably supported by the evidence at trial.” Festival Fun Parks, LLC v.
Bellamy
, 123 So. 3d 684, 685-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Truelove v.
Blount
, 954 So. 2d 1284, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)).

“[O]nly
medical expenses that are reasonably certain to be incurred in the future are
recoverable.” Vazquez v. Martinez, 175 So. 3d 372, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA
2015); accord GEICO Indem. Co. v. DeGrandchamp, 102 So. 3d 685, 686
(Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Further, “[t]here must also be an evidentiary basis upon
which the jury can, with reasonable certainty, determine the amount of those
expenses.” Vazquez, 175 So. 3d at 374; see also GEICO, 102 So. 3d
at 686 (holding that “[w]hile DeGrandechamp [sic] established that she was
reasonably certain to incur at least some medical expenses in the future, we
can find no evidentiary basis to support the amount of the jury’s award in this
case”). Testimony or evidence that certain treatments might possibly be
obtained in the future cannot merit an award of future medical expenses. Vazquez,
175 So. 3d at 374 (citing Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So. 3d 805, 812 (Fla.
3d DCA 2010); Truelove, 954 So. 2d at 1288).

At
trial, one of Isaacs’ treating physicians opined that she would incur up to
$2,000 in future medical expenses per year, and also recommended that she
undergo shoulder surgery that he estimated would cost $40,000-$50,000. This was
the only competent, substantial evidence presented on which the award for
future medical expenses could be based. However, as to his opinion regarding
the future annual medical expenses, no testimony about life expectancy was
presented to the jury.

Due
to the lack of evidence relating to Isaacs’ life expectancy, in addition to the
fact that the amount awarded for future medical expenses far exceeded what the
evidence supported, we remand this case to the trial court for a new trial
solely on the issue of Isaacs’ life expectancy relating to the $2,000 per year
for future medical expenses. We therefore affirm only the portions of the final
award for future medical expenses covering $50,000 for the appellee’s future
shoulder surgery, and her projected annual expenses of $2,000 (with the
ultimate total of those annual expenses subject to the trial court’s
life-expectancy findings on remand). We affirm all other amounts of the final
award, and on all other issues raised on appeal.

Affirmed
in part, Reversed in part and Remanded with instructions.
(TAYLOR
and FORST, JJ., concur.)

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

Blog Archives

Footer

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

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982