209 So. 3d 77
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- On May 17, 2009 Thomas Dixon (GEICO insured) was struck head-on by Gerardo Alcebo, an uninsured driver later convicted of DUI causing bodily injury; Alcebo and GEICO admitted liability and the trial court determined punitive liability as a matter of law.
- Dixon sued GEICO for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits and joined Alcebo seeking compensatory and punitive damages; the trial was bifurcated into compensatory and punitive phases.
- Despite bifurcation, the trial court allowed evidence and argument about Alcebo’s intoxication during the compensatory phase; the judge instructed the jury that punitive damages were warranted because Alcebo drove with BAC ≥ .08.
- The jury found Dixon sustained a permanent back injury and awarded $970,396.62 in compensatory damages (including $33,600 for future medical expenses and $288,000 for future loss of earning capacity) and $1,000 in punitive damages; judgment against GEICO was entered for UM policy limits of $20,000.
- GEICO moved for a new trial (arguing admission of DUI evidence during compensatory phase was prejudicial) and for directed verdict/JNOV on future economic damages; motions were denied and GEICO appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dixon) | Defendant's Argument (GEICO/Alcebo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence/argument about Alcebo’s intoxication was admissible in the compensatory phase after liability and punitive liability were admitted/decided | That evidence was relevant to credibility and to paint defendant’s conduct for compensatory award | Evidence of intoxication was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial once liability and punitive liability were conceded; bifurcation counselled exclusion | Reversed: admission was an abuse of discretion; DUI evidence in phase one was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial — new trial on compensatory damages ordered |
| Whether future medical expenses (Suboxone) were proven with reasonable certainty | Suboxone use is a future medical expense tied to accident-related injury; request for five-year supply was reasonable | Plaintiff failed to prove causal link or duration with reasonable certainty; award speculative | Reversed: insufficient evidence to support future medical expense award; directed verdict/JNOV should have been granted |
| Whether future loss of earning capacity was proven with reasonable certainty | Dixon testified to planned post-retirement hydrostatic-testing work and loss of capacity post-accident, and proposed monthly earnings figure | Testimony lacked proof of job availability, wages, and that injury precluded such work; earnings projection speculative | Reversed: insufficient evidence to support future loss of earning capacity award |
| Standard of review for evidentiary rulings and directed verdicts | N/A | N/A | Admission of evidence/new-trial denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; directed verdict reviewed de novo — court applied these standards and reversed where appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Swanson v. Robles, 128 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (evidence of drug/alcohol use is irrelevant and prejudicial in compensatory phase when liability and punitive liability are not at issue)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1995) (future economic damages must be shown with reasonable certainty)
- Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So. 3d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (future medical expenses require proof of need and cost with reasonable certainty)
- Truelove v. Blount, 954 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (mere possibility of future treatment cannot support future medical expense award)
- Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1953) (plaintiff bears burden to prove future medical care and costs with reasonable certainty)