State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Thorne
110 So. 3d 66
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- State Farm and Thomas challenge several trial rulings in Thorne's consolidated action arising from a 2004 incident involving 2004 defendants and a 2006 rear-end collision involving Thomas.
- Thorne, a passenger in the 2004 accident, underwent shoulder, neck, and knee surgeries, and sues the 2004 defendants, Thomas, and State Farm as underinsured carrier.
- State Farm disclosed Dr. Knezevich, an orthopedic surgeon, only sixty-nine days before trial; trial court limited his testimony to the most recent surgery.
- Dr. Bain, State Farm’s expert, was precluded from testifying on causation of neck and knee injuries after a Frye challenge.
- A high-low agreement between Thorne and the 2004 defendants existed; the trial court did not disclose it to the jury, and the parties sought permission to inform the jury.
- During closing, Thorne’s counsel argued a lack of defense witnesses and evidence, prompting objections that the court overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation on Knezevich testimony | Thorne argues late disclosure prejudiced her; testimony should be allowed fully. | State Farm cured prejudice by disclosure and curbing scope; testimony limited was appropriate. | Abuse of discretion; Knezevich testimony should not have been so limited. |
| Bain causation testimony Frye issue | Bain’s causation opinion was admissible as training/experience; Frye does not apply to causation. | Bain’s testimony was properly excluded under Frye challenges regarding causation. | Erroneous preclusion; Frye does not bar causal opinions based on training/experience. |
| High-low agreement disclosure | Dosdourian requires disclosure of such agreements to juries; trial court erred in withholding. | Court properly weighed policy considerations about confidentiality and trial integrity. | Remand with required disclosure to the jury. |
| Closing argument improper remarks | Closing improperly highlighted missing defense witnesses and evidence, shifting focus unfairly. | Arguments were permissible advocacy given the trial record. | Closing argument conduct was reversible error; new trial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (pretrial disclosure prejudice requires strong showing; exclusion is drastic)
- Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1993) (outlaws secret settlements; disclosure to juries; high-low analogies)
- Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1973) (principles of disclosure under Ward and related cases)
- Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So.2d 543 (Fla. 2007) (causation testimony based on training not subject to Frye)
- Gelsthorpe v. Weinstein, 897 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (Frye analysis in medical causation testimony)
- Carnival Corp. v. Pajares, 972 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (improper closing argument; shifting focus post-exclusion)
- JVA Enters., I, LLC v. Prentice, 48 So.3d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (prohibition against improper closing arguments after exclusion)
- Intramed, Inc. v. Guider, 93 So.3d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (serial improprieties in closing argument compound prejudice)