Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Darragh
95 So. 3d 897
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Nationwide appeals a $3.99 million jury verdict in favor of insured Mark W. Darragh.
- Nationwide provided uninsured motorist coverage to Darragh in the amount of $200,000.
- The court erred by declining to instruct reduction of future economic damages to present value.
- The court admitted and considered Darragh’s testimony on future pension benefits based on government website printouts.
- The court held admissibility issues regarding website printouts and potential judicial notice were improper but certain past medical damages were properly admitted or offset as collateral source.
- On retrial, the court remanded only as to future economic damages; other issues were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Present-value instruction for future damages | Darragh’s future damages must be reduced to present value | The 1999 amendment to 768.77 removed requirement for itemized present-value calculation | Remand for new trial on future economic damages; present-value instruction required |
| Admissibility of past medical bills and collateral source set-off | Full amount of past medical bills admissible; collateral source set-off appropriate | Collateral source set-off and past bills proper under statutes and case law | No error in admitting past medical bills; collateral source set-off upheld |
| Admissibility of pension-benefit evidence from websites | Website data admissible for estimating future pensions | Website printouts not properly authenticated; not proper public records or judicially noticeable | Trial court erred in admitting website printouts and related testimony |
| Judicial notice of federal statutes for pension math | Could use federal statute or official formula for calculations | No clear statutory formula; cannot substitute for expert testimony | Not applicable on current record; potential path on remand if a plain formula is located |
| Public policy/interpretation of 90.706 and treatises | Treatises or public records may be used for cross-examination or judicial notice | Treatises not admissible as substantive evidence; issues of reliability | Admissibility limited; not used as substantive evidence; cross-examination preferred |
Key Cases Cited
- Dupuis v. Heider, 113 Fla. 679, 152 So. 659 ((1934)) (present-value guidance for damages)
- Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Young, 104 Fla. 541, 140 So. 467 ((1932)) (damages and present value principles)
- Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Lassiter, 58 Fla. 234, 50 So. 428 ((1909)) (present value/definitional rules for damages)
- Milton v. Reyes, 22 So.3d 624 ((Fla. 3d DCA 2009)) (present value of future damages remains, even after 768.77 amendment)
- Howell v. Woods, 489 So.2d 154 ((Fla. 4th DCA 1986)) (historical context of damages presentation requirements)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Burdi, 427 So.2d 1048 ((Fla. 3d DCA 1983)) (evidentiary standards for damages)