Stecher v. Pomeroy, 40941
| Decision Date | 20 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 40941,40941 |
| Citation | 253 So.2d 421 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | Beedie S. STECHER and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Petitioners, v. Shelby Dean POMEROY and Norman O. Pomeroy, her husband, Respondents. |
Monroe E. McDonald, of Sanders, McEwan, Mims & McDonald, Orlando, for petitioners.
Fishback, Davis, Dominick, Simonet & Salfi, Orlando, J. B. Spence, of Spence, Payne & Masington, and Robert Orseck, of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for respondents.
Petitioners claim conflict with the innovations in the law which were set forth in this Court's opinions in Beta Eta House Corp., Inc., of Tallahassee v. Gregory, 237 So.2d 163 (Fla.1970), and Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So.2d 713 (Fla.1969). After argument and further consideration, the alleged conflict necessary for certiorari jurisdiction here 1 fails to appear and accordingly the writ of certiorari which was earlier issued herein to the Fourth District Court of Appeal to review its opinion in this cause at 244 So.2d 488 (Fla.App.1971), being improvidently entered, is discharged.
The conflict asserted is not primarily founded upon the basic holding in Beta Eta and in Bussey regarding the granting or not of severance to a named insurance company defendant. This apparently continues to be a troublesome question before the trial courts, which we hope we can clarify later in this opinion. The principal conflict urged here is in the satellite areas regarding the mention of insurance limits to the jury, refusal of a requested instruction to disregard and whether in these circumstances such error, if any, was harmless. It appears to be harmless here, in light of the fact that the verdict was.$19,000 despite policy limits of $100,000/$300,000; where there was a disc involvement with serious and prolonged disability, traction and hospitalization; and where the injuries were permanent.
This recognition of harmless error in these particular circumstances is not to be regarded as approval by this Court of the mention of policy limits to a jury. This should not be done. Nor is it approval of the trial court's refusal to grant the requested instruction to disregard, which should have been given. It is simply held to be harmless error here where an examination of the entire record reflects a tone which indicates in no wise any adverse effect upon the jury's verdict. 2
The record in this cause encompassed 416 pages without any other mention whatever of insurance over a period of two days' trial, the only reference having been that which was set forth in the defendants' answer to interrogatories. Moreover, the Court here instructed the jury generally that its verdict must be based solely on the evidence and the charges of the Court in accordance with standard jury instructions. Liability was admitted.
One of the objectives of Beta and Bussey was to provide a disclosure of policy limits Between the parties which had not previously been allowed. The reasons were for purposes of negotiation and to encourage settlement between the parties and thus shorten litigation and speed up the courts' heavy trial dockets. It was never intended that policy limits should go to the jury and Beta Eta expressly said so. It is immaterial for the jury's consideration, because the principles still stand that its decision must rest solely upon the evidence and the law as charged. Moreover, to reveal defendants' amount of insurance before the jury would equally entitle a defendant to bring out his coverage when the limits are minimal and advantageous to him. Neither one has relevancy and has no place before the jury.
It was felt in reaching our decisions in Beta and Bussey that revealing the existence of an insuror as a real party in interest justifiably reflects the true fact that there is financial responsibility. This offsets any indulgence by counsel or the jury with unfounded arguments like, 'This poor, hard working truck driver and his family' approach, when in fact there is an ability to respond. It is probably not a factor in other instances where there is an obviously responsible principal defendant as in Compania Dominicana de Aviacion. 3
It is fair to note also in this respect the holding of In re Rules Governing Conduct of Attorneys in Fla., 220 So.2d 6 (Fla.1969), actively argued before this Court shortly prior to Bussey. There it was asserted by the insurance companies of this state then appearing (including three associations which 'represent 659 insurance companies who write the bulk of the fire, casualty and liability policies in Florida'), that they are the real parties in interest in these negligence cases; that the lawyers they employ and provide under the insurance policies to defend the cases, are really representing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Special v. Baux
...an “effect on the fact finder” harmless error test in a civil case, but without explicitly characterizing its approach. In Stecher v. Pomeroy, 253 So.2d 421 (Fla.1971), a personal injury action, the trial court erroneously admitted evidence about the extent of the defendant's insurance cove......
-
Steelmet, Inc. v. Caribe Towing Corp.
...on the table" in discovery proceedings, settlement negotiations, and pre-trial hearings. 237 So.2d at 165. In 1971 in Stecher v. Pomeroy, 253 So.2d 421 (Fla.1971), the Supreme Court held that under some circumstances there might be issues that would make it appropriate to sever an insurer a......
-
Ramos v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co.
...House Corp., Inc. v. Gregory, 237 So.2d 163 (Fla.1970), Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 250 So.2d 259 (Fla.1971), Stecher v. Pomeroy, 253 So.2d 421 (Fla.1971), Godshall v. Unigard Ins. Co., 281 So.2d 499 (Fla.1973), and Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply Co., Inc., 298 So.2d 361 Petiti......
-
Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply, Inc.
...fighting so hard injected passion into the case, we conclude this to have had no prejudicial effect under the authority of Stecher v. Pomeroy, 253 So.2d 421 (Fla.1971), wherein this Court 'It was felt in reaching our decisions in Beta and Bussey that revealing the existence of an insuror as......