Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thomas, s. 92-2908

• Decision Date: 08 June 1994
• Docket Number: Nos. 92-2908,93-0004 and 93-0810,s. 92-2908
• Parties: 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1251 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Kenneth W. THOMAS, Jannie M. Thomas, his wife, and Marvin Zalkin, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1008

637 So.2d 1008

19 Fla. L. Weekly D1251

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Kenneth W. THOMAS, Jannie M. Thomas, his wife, and Marvin

Zalkin, Appellees.

Nos. 92-2908, 93-0004 and 93-0810.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fourth District.

June 8, 1994.

Michele I. Nelson of Paxton, Crow, Bragg, Smith & Keyser, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jose G. Rodriguez, and Philip M. Burlington of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn & Compiani, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

POLEN, Judge.

Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), defendant below, appeals from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, Kenneth W. Thomas and Jannie M. Thomas. We affirm.

This case arose out of two automobile accidents. The first occurred on September 5, 1987, and the second occurred on June 27, 1990. Appellee Kenneth W. Thomas was involved in both accidents. In the first accident, the other driver involved, Matthew Donaldson, was named as a defendant in this suit, but he was dropped as a party at the beginning of trial when plaintiffs (Thomas and his wife) settled with him for his policy limits. Plaintiffs/appellees additionally joined Allstate, their own uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier, as a party to the litigation with regard to the first accident. The other driver involved in the second accident, Marvin Zalkin, was named as a defendant as well, but he agreed to admit liability for the second accident in exchange for the plaintiffs'/appellees' agreement to limit any recovery to his policy limits of $500,000. Appellant Allstate admitted liability with regard to Donaldson in the first accident. As a result, liability was not an issue at trial as to either accident, and the only issues before the court were causation and apportionment of damages. There was extensive lay and expert testimony and other evidence presented regarding Thomas's physical condition before and after each accident, including testimony from Thomas's coworkers who observed him in the interim between the accidents.

The trial court directed a verdict in Thomas's favor on the issue of whether his injuries were permanent as a result of the first automobile accident. The court then instructed the jury on the apportionment of damages. The jury returned a verdict wherein it determined that each defendant's negligence caused damage to Thomas. The jury responded, "Yes," to the question on the verdict form, "Are you able to apportion or separate Kenneth Thomas' [sic] damages as between the accident of September 5, '87 and the accident of June 27, 1990?" The jury then assessed 50% of Thomas's damages to each accident and awarded Thomas $100,000 in total damages, with an award of $25,000 to his wife for her derivative claim.

We address only the first of Allstate's points on appeal, finding no merit in the remaining points. Allstate contends that the issue of whether plaintiff's injury was permanent after the first accident should have gone to the jury.

As a threshold matter, we disagree with Allstate's contention that Jarrell v. Churm, 611 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), is no longer good law and that we should apply Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So.2d 495 (Fla.1993). In our view, the supreme court in Easkold did not overrule Jarrell. It merely pointed out that a jury could reject expert medical testimony even if it was uncontradicted or contradicted by lay testimony. In Easkold, however, there was ample evidence in the record from which a jury might conclude that the plaintiff had inaccurately reported her medical history to the experts. Easkold, 614 So.2d at 497-498. Thus, it is logical that under those facts, the jury must have the option to reject the experts' testimonies. The supreme court premised its holding on those facts. Id. at 498. Accordingly, cases decided after Easkold have relied on that case, in circumstances where the evidence adduced at trial could reasonably be rejected by a jury, because the suggestion is strong that plaintiff failed to accurately report his or her medical history. See e.g., Ullman v. City of Tampa Parks Dept., 625 So.2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (Judge of Compensation Claims not required to accept medical expert's opinion of relationship between accident and injury, where opinion was based on what the Judge of Compensation Claims believed to be an incorrect medical history); compare Holmes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 624 So.2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (Easkold distinguished and Jarrell...