Mizrahi v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 98-2399.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-2399.,98-2399.
• Citation: Mizrahi v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 748 So.2d 1059 (Fla. App. 1999)
• Parties: Ralph MIZRAHI, Appellant, v. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

748 So.2d 1059

Ralph MIZRAHI, Appellant, v. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 98-2399.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 15, 1999.

Rehearing Denied January 26, 2000.

Richard F. O'Brien, III, Miami, for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen, Edmund T. Henry, III, and Stacey L. Goldberg, Miami, for appellee.

Before LEVY, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Ralph Mizrahi, appeals from an adverse final judgment. We affirm for several reasons.

First, the record properly indicates that the insurer was required to carry the burden of proving that Mizrahi's total disability had ceased. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Fruchter, 283 So.2d 36, 37 (Fla.1973)(holding that where an insurance company has previously acknowledged the existence of a total disability and then has terminated the disability payments, the insurance company has the burden of proof to show that the total disability has ceased). Next, the trial court acted within its discretion in determining the order of presentation at trial. Johnson v. Mortham, 915 F.Supp. 1574, 1581 (N.D.Fla.1996)("[A] trial court has broad discretion to exercise control over the order of presentation at trial.... There will be no error in changing the order of presentation, so long as the court does not shift the ultimate burden...