GEICO Indem. Co. v. DeGrandchamp
| Decision Date | 28 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D10–6097.,2D10–6097. |
| Citation | 102 So.3d 685 |
| Parties | GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Pollie DeGRANDCHAMP, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Dorothy V. DiFiore and Penelope T. Rowlett of Haas, Lewis, DiFiore & Amos, P.A., Tampa; and Joseph F. Kinman, Jr., of Ogden & Sullivan, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Celene H. Humphries and Tyler K. Pitchford of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa; and Tony Griffith, Drew Tanney, and Brian Guenther of Tanney & Griffith, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellee.
A jury awarded damages to Appellee Pollie DeGrandchamp for injuries she suffered when her car was struck from behind by another car. Appellant, GEICO Indemnity Company, which provided uninsured/underinsured motorists' coverage to DeGrandchamp, raises three issues in this appeal from the judgment entered against it and in favor of DeGrandchamp; however, we find merit only in GEICO's argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied its motion for remittitur or a new trial.
After the jury returned a verdict awarding DeGrandchamp $1,250,000 in future medical expenses, reduced to a present value of $250,000, GEICO filed a motion for remittitur challenging the jury's award, which the trial court denied. In this appeal, GEICO contends the trial court should have granted the motion because DeGrandchamp did not establish these damages with reasonable certainty, and that even if she had, the amount awarded was not supported by the evidence. We review a trial court's ruling on a motion for remittitur under an abuse of discretion standard. Truelove v. Blount, 954 So.2d 1284, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Where a plaintiff seeks damages for future medical expenses, only medical expenses that are reasonably certain to be incurred in the future are recoverable. Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185, 188 (Fla.1953); Truelove, 954 So.2d at 1287. There must also be an evidentiary basis upon which the jury can, with reasonable certainty, determine the amount of those expenses. Loftin, 67 So.2d at 188. While DeGrandechamp established that she was reasonably certain to incur at least some medical expenses in the future, we can find no evidentiary basis to support the amount of the jury's award in this case.
Two physicians offered testimony regarding DeGrandchamp's future medical care. Dr. Foley, an interventional radiologist, testified that it was reasonably certain that in the future DeGrandchamp would continue to experience problems with her neck. When asked about future treatment, however, he testified generally that “for a patient like this, if they continued to have symptoms ... I would probably consider doing a nerve root block.” He then went on to testify that typically such a patient initially gets two rounds consisting of six shots and “hopefully” after that they are satisfied with the level of pain relief but that “some patients come back every year for one or two more injections, or every other year.” When asked to specifically describe what he expected would be DeGrandchamp's future course of treatment “within a reasonable degree of medical probability” Dr. Foley did not testify that she required any treatment but instead reiterated his testimony that patients who have had the same type of surgery can continue to experience neck problems. This testimony does not establish that DeGrandchamp is “reasonably certain” to incur expenses for this treatmentin the future. See Truelove, 954 So.2d at 1287;see also Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So.3d 805, 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ().
The second physician who testified regarding future medical treatment, Dr. Colbassani, said that it was reasonably certain that DeGrandchamp will need some treatment for her neck the rest of her life including physical therapy, “probably” injections, and “possibly” surgery. He indicated that there was a “good chance” DeGrandchamp would need surgery in the future at a cost of $50,000 to $60,000. He was unable to testify regarding the cost of anything other than the surgery. While this testimony establishes that DeGrandchamp is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vazquez v. Martinez
...jury can, with reasonable certainty, determine the amount of those expenses. Loftin, 67 So.2d at 188 ; see GEICO Indem. Co. v. DeGrandchamp, 102 So.3d 685, 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). A mere possibility that certain treatment might be obtained in the future cannot form the basis of an award of ......
-
Auto Club Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Babin
...that these medical expenses [were] reasonably certain to be incurred in the future." Id. at 453 ; accord GEICO Indem. Co. v. DeGrandchamp, 102 So.3d 685, 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (finding that doctor's testimony that plaintiff would "possibly" need surgery was insufficient to support jury awa......
-
Gen. Emps. Ins. Co. v. Isaacs
...in the future are recoverable." Vazquez v. Martinez , 175 So.3d 372, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ; accord GEICO Indem. Co. v. DeGrandchamp , 102 So.3d 685, 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Further, "[t]here must also be an evidentiary basis upon which the jury can, with reasonable certainty, determine t......
- Rolle v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc.
-
$______ VERDICT - INSURANCE OBLIGATION - UNDERINSURED DRIVER - PLAINTIFF INVOLVED IN REAR END COLLISION WITH UNDERINSURED DRIVER AND MAKES CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WITH DEFENDANT INSURER - 2 LUMBAR HERNIATIONS; AGGRAVATION OF PRIOR CERVICAL INJURY; PERSISTENT, CHRONIC HEADACHES AND INJURIES TO LEFT SHOULDER - LEFT SHOULDER SURGERY; MEDIAL BRANCH BLOCK; RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION - SURGICAL SCARRING.
...claim for future medical expenses was speculative and the jury was precluded from awarding them as in Geico Indem. Co. v. DeGrandchamp, 102 So. 3d 685, 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Accordingly, the defendant argued, the court should have entered a judgment that did not include the jury’s award o......