JVA Enterprises, I, LLC v. Prentice
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 17151
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Prentice sued JVA Enterprises I, LLC and Enterprises, Inc. for injuries allegedly sustained in December 2003 and March 2004 aboard the yacht Enterprise V, asserting unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and negligence claims.
- Prentice disclosed prior workers’ compensation claims; California records showed a 1991 neck/shoulder injury with persistent issues and permanent findings, including C5-6 degenerative changes and earlier disc bulges.
- Defendants moved for sanctions for concealing the 1991 injury; the trial court denied, later denying sanctions as a distant, dispositive factor for cross-examination.
- Prentice moved in limine to exclude 1991 records as unrelated; trial court granted the motion in limine, barring any reference to the California injury during trial.
- At trial, evidence of the 1991 injury was excluded; defendants sought to cross-examine Prentice to attack credibility and causation of current injuries; the jury awarded damages to Prentice.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of dismissal for fraud on the court but reversed the evidentiary exclusion and remanded for a new trial, with other issues left for possible remand considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud-on-the-court dismissal standard | Prentice’s conduct did not warrant dismissal for fraud on the court. | The concealment of prior injury evidence justified dismissal for fraud on the court. | Denial of dismissal affirmed. |
| Exclusion of 1991 injury evidence | Evidence of prior 1991 injury was irrelevant and prejudicial; exclusion proper. | Prior injury evidence relevant to credibility and causation; should have been allowed. | Exclusion reversed; evidence admissible on remand. |
| Right to cross-examine about prior injuries | Cross-examination on prior injuries and records should be limited or barred. | Cross-examination is essential to challenge credibility and causation. | Trial court abused discretion by excluding cross-examination on prior injuries. |
| Set-off for insurance payments | Set-off not warranted; damages should stand. | Insurance payments may be set off under applicable rules; facts were not fully developed. | Remanded for determination of possible set-off on remand. |
| Pre-judgment interest | Pre-judgment interest appropriate. | Pre-judgment interest improper. | Reversed as to pre-judgment interest; remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arzuman v. Saud, 843 So.2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (trial court may dismiss for fraud on the court in extreme circumstances)
- Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So.2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (improper disclosure decisions can be cured by cross-examination)
- Cross v. Pumpco, Inc., 910 So.2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (impeachment and discovery sanctions preferred over dismissal for inconsistencies)
- Zenchak v. Kaeufer, 612 So.2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (prior injuries may be used to show preexisting conditions via cross-examination)
- Zabner v. Howard Johnson’s Inc. of Fla., 227 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (prior injuries relevant to credibility and causation)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pettigrew, 884 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (impeachment and credibility tools govern prior injuries evidence)
- Johnson v. Cenac Towing, Inc., 544 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2008) (set-off and related doctrines discussed in appellate context)
- McPhillamy v. Brown & Root, Inc., 810 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1987) (pre-judgment interest issues in maritime/multifactor contexts)