664 So. 2d 301 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1995
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Marta and Luis G. Garcia from a final judgment entered upon an adverse jury verdict in an action brought to collect on an insurance policy. We affirm.
First, we are not persuaded that defense counsel’s abbreviated remarks to the jury concerning the motivation for this action mandated a mistrial because (a) a proper cautionary instruction cured any impropriety in counsel’s remarks during opening statement, and (b) counsel’s remarks during closing argument were, at worst, harmless in nature. See Brumage v. Plummer, 502 So.2d 966, 969 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 513 So.2d 1062 (Fla.1987); Honda Motor Co. v. Marcus, 440 So.2d 373, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So.2d 886 (Fla.1984); Decks, Inc. v. Nunez, 299 So.2d 165, 166-67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert, denied, 308 So.2d 112 (Fla.1975).
Second, no reversible error is shown concerning the refused jury instructions or the complained-of affidavit. See West Town Plaza Assocs. v. Pines Properties, Inc., 600 So.2d 477, 478-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Giordano v. Ramirez, 503 So.2d 947, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Rodriguez v. Haller, 177 So.2d 519, 520-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Llompart v. Lavecchia, 374 So.2d 77, 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert, denied, 385 So.2d 758 (Fla.1980).
Affirmed.