Gamsen v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
68 So. 3d 290
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Rear-end collision; liability admitted; UM carrier liability at issue for damages.
- Two jurors allegedly concealed prior litigation history; non-disclosure basis for new-trial motion.
- Voir dire questions were broad; juror inquiries did not elicit complete litigation history.
- Trial court granted new trial solely on juror nondisclosure; evidence included case summaries not conclusively showing court appearances.
- Court reviews abuse-of-discretion standard for juror nondisclosure-based new trials; materiality, concealment, and due-diligence assessed.
- Court reverses, reinstating jury verdict and remanding for entry of verdict without new-trial order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the new trial granted for juror nondisclosure an abuse of discretion? | Gamsens: trial court abused discretion; nondisclosure insufficient. | State Farm: nondisclosure material and concealment shown. | Yes; abuse of discretion; reverse and reinstate verdict. |
| Was the nondisclosure material to jury service in this case? | Information not material; general inquiry not specific. | Some information potentially material though not clearly; materiality case-by-case. | Not satisfied; materiality not proven. |
| Did jurors conceal information or were answers ambiguous given questions asked? | Answers not clearly concealment; questions too generic. | Concealment established by omission of relevant litigation history. | Concealment not proven; ambiguity excused by broad questioning. |
| Was there due diligence by counsel to elicit information? | Counsel not required to pursue every branching inquiry. | Counsel should have explored more fully given opportunity to question. | No due diligence; court erred in granting new trial. |
| Did the trial court have sufficient basis to grant a new trial based on juror history? | No substantial basis beyond general inquiry. | History of litigation relevant and undisclosed. | Not supported; reversal and reinstatement of verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiggins v. Sadow, 925 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (juror nondisclosure review under abuse of discretion)
- De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1995) (three-part test for materiality, concealment, due diligence)
- Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334 (Fla. 2002) (case-by-case materiality analysis for jury service)
- Birch v. Albert, 761 So.2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (concealment requires clear, unambiguous responses; questioning must be straightforward)
- Simon v. Maldonado, 65 So.3d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (illustrates lack of diligence in eliciting information)