Allstate Insurance Co. v. Marotta
125 So. 3d 956
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Allstate Insurance Company appeals a final judgment entered after a trial awarding Marotta $441,000 for damages from an uninsured motorist accident.
- The jury found specified past and future medical expenses and past and future noneconomic damages; final judgment capped at policy limits, $100,000, based on a policy clause.
- Marotta cross-appeals the denial of his motion to tax costs under Florida law; the cross-appeal is moot due to the reversal on appeal.
- Allstate challenged Marotta’s closing argument and alleged improper impeachment of Allstate’s expert, Dr. Lins; trial court denied motions for new trial.
- The court reviewed preservation of objections, held improper closing arguments and improper impeachment caused reversible error, and reversed for a new trial.
- The opinion also held that the uninsured motorist policy’s costs clause is unenforceable to deprive Marotta of costs beyond policy limits; Allstate remains liable for costs if Marotta prevails on retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether improper closing argument and impeachment warrant a new trial | Marotta argues preserved and unpreserved errors cumulatively require reversal. | Allstate argues comments were proper or harmless and warrant no new trial. | Yes; reversal and remand for a new trial due to improper closing and impeachment. |
| Whether the cross-examination/impeachment of Dr. Lins was improper | Marotta contends impeachment evidence was within permissible scope. | Allstate asserts impeachment records were improperly elicited. | Improper impeachment; contributes to reversible error requiring new trial. |
| Whether the UM policy cost provision is enforceable against Marotta | Foremost and related authorities require costs be recoverable beyond policy limits. | Allstate relies on the policy clause assigning costs to the losing party. | Unenforceable; uninsured motorist costs may exceed policy limits; Allstate liable for costs if Marotta prevails. |
| Whether Marotta's cross-appeal remains viable after reversal | Cross-appeal seeks costs and related relief on appeal. | Cross-appeal is moot due to the reversal on main issues. | Moot, but discussed for judicial economy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Intramed, Inc. v. Guider, 93 So.3d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (closing argument improper when aimed to punish defendant)
- Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So.3d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (prohibits punishing a party for contesting a claim in closing)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Thorne, 110 So.3d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (improper closing can denigrate defense; impact on trial fairness)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Revuelta, 901 So.2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (uninsured motorist defense rights; defense allowed)
- Foremost Insurance Co. v. Warmuth, 649 So.2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (uninsured motorist costs can be taxed beyond policy limits)
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (limits on production of expert financial records)
- Sanchez v. Nerys, 954 So.2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (improper scope of questioning on expert records)
- Carnival Corp. v. Pajares, 972 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (improper denigration of defense; persistent improper questions)