21st Century v. Thynge, 5D16-1575

Mrs. Thynge was involved in a 2013 car accident and sued her insurer, 21st Century, for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits alleging causation and permanent injury.
Pretrial, the court struck 21st Century’s three experts (compulsory medical examiner, biomechanical engineer, medical coding expert).
At trial, only Mrs. Thynge and her neurosurgeon, Dr. Jonathan Paine, testified on causation and permanency; Dr. Paine opined the accident aggravated preexisting degenerative disc disease and gave a tentative permanency opinion (15–20% added risk; possible future surgery).
The jury found the accident caused injury but rejected permanency and awarded $7,000 for lost wages.
After trial, plaintiffs moved for judgment in accordance with their earlier directed-verdict motion and for a new trial; the trial court granted judgment for plaintiffs (directed verdict on causation/permanency) and a new trial.
The Fifth District reversed: it held the directed verdict was improper given conflicting evidence (including incomplete medical history provided to Dr. Paine, contrary medical testimony, and plaintiff’s inconsistent accident-scene testimony) and vacated the new-trial order for failure to preserve a voir dire objection.

Issue	Thynge's Argument	21st Century's Argument	Held
Whether directed verdict on causation and permanency was proper	Dr. Paine’s expert testimony established causation and permanency; no rebutting expert	The jury could reasonably reject Dr. Paine because he lacked prior records and relied on incomplete history; conflicting evidence existed	Reversed: directed verdict improper because conflicting evidence supported the jury’s verdict
Whether jury’s non-permanency finding was unreasonable	Permanency was established as a matter of law by expert testimony	Jury could credit other evidence and inconsistencies; expert’s opinion was equivocal and based on incomplete facts	Reversed: jury’s non-permanency finding stands; directed verdict not allowed under Wald framework
Whether new trial based on limited voir dire was warranted	Appellees asserted voir dire was improperly limited, warranting a new trial	21st Century argued issue was not preserved as no contemporaneous objection was renewed	Reversed: new-trial order vacated because plaintiffs failed to preserve voir dire complaint
Admissibility/striking of 21st Century’s experts (alternative challenge)	N/A in opinion’s disposition	21st Century contended striking its experts prejudiced its defense	Court did not reach this issue because reversal of directed verdict and new trial disposition resolved appeal

Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Barbanell, 100 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (motion for judgment in accordance with directed verdict reviewed de novo)
Volusia Cty. v. Joynt, 179 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (directed verdict standard: grant only if no reasonable evidence supports nonmoving party)
Benitez v. Joseph Trucking, Inc., 68 So. 3d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (directed verdict standard reiterated)
Cohen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 203 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (directed verdict inappropriate where conflicting evidence on causation exists)
Friedrich v. Fetterman & Assocs., P.A., 137 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013) (conflict-evidence principle applied to directed verdicts)
Wald v. Grainger, 64 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2011) (permanency may be directed for plaintiff based on expert testimony unless rebutted, impeached, or conflicting evidence presented)
Brown v. Lunskis, 128 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (explaining Wald’s exceptions to directed verdict for permanency)
Wallace v. Holiday Isle Resort & Marina, Inc., 706 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (failure to renew objection bars later new-trial claim)
Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993) (renewal of objection required to preserve issues for appeal)