Stecher v. Pomeroy, 70--442
| Decision Date | 29 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--442,70--442 |
| Citation | 244 So.2d 488 |
| Parties | Beedie S. STECHER and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Appellants, v. Shelby Dean POMEROY and Norman O. Pomeroy, her husband, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Monroe E. McDonald of Sanders, McEwan, Mims & McDonald, Orlando, for appellants.
Cecil C. Martin and Dominick J. Salfi of Fishback, Davis, Dominick, Simonet & Salfi, Orlando, for appellees.
Shelby Dean Pomeroy sustained personal injury as a result of an automobile collision. She and her husband brought suit against Beedie S. Stecher, the owner-operator of the adverse vehicle, and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, the liability insurer of the Stecher vehicle. The jury returned verdicts favorable to the plaintiffs and defendants appeal from the judgment entered thereon.
The point on appeal is that they were deprived of a fair trial by the trial court (a) informing the jury that the liability insurance carrier was a party defendant, (b) permitting plaintiffs to publish to the jury answers to the interrogatories disclosing the existence and extent of liability insurance coverage, and (c) refusing to instruct the jury to ignore the existence of the insurance coverage.
The joinder of the liability insurance carrier as a party defendant was proper, Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla.1969, 223 So.2d 713, and the trial court's denial of the motion for severance made at the commencement of the trial, being a matter addressed to the courts' discretion, Beta Eta House Corporation, Inc. of Tallahassee v. Gregory, Fla.1970, 237 So.2d 163, has not been shown to have been an abuse of discretion.
The existence or amount of insurance coverage has no bearing on the issues of liability and damages (in an action seeking damages proximately caused by an insured's alleged negligence) and such evidence should not be considered by the jury. Beta Eta House Corporation, Inc. of Tallahassee v. Gregory, supra. How the trial court, in a negligence action of this type, can possibly prevent a mature and sophisticated jury from inferring the likely existence of liability insurance coverage, so long as the insurer is a party at trial, is beyond us. But to permit direct evidence on not only the existence of liability insurance coverage, but also the extent thereof, when neither matter is relevant to any issue then being tried, is clearly error.
The existence or amount of insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teichner & Mella, P.A. v. Butler By and Through Fulton
...Seaboard Coast Line R.R. v. Magnuson, 288 So.2d 302, 303 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 297 So.2d 30 (Fla.1974); Stecher v. Pomeroy, 244 So.2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA), writ discharged, 253 So.2d (Fla.1971); Sec. 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1989). The second of the claimed evidentiary errors presents, in o......
-
Medina v. Peralta
...based on analogies to two Fourth District decisions, Brush v. Palm Beach County, 679 So.2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Stecher v. Pomeroy, 244 So.2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA), writ discharged, 253 So.2d 421 (Fla.1971). Miller, 688 So.2d at 936. Judge Klein construed strong language in Brush, whic......
-
Compania Dominicana de Aviacion v. Knapp
...new trial. See Beta Eta, supra; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Myers, Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 83, 2 D.C.A.; Stecher v. Pomeroy, Fla.App.1971, 244 So.2d 488; Durrett v. Davidson, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 46; and Rule 1.270(b), R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. Defendants next contend that the trial......
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Blackmon, 1D98-3526.
...Cushing, 601 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); see also White Constr. Co. v. Dupont, 455 So.2d 1026, 1029 (Fla.1984); Stecher v. Pomeroy, 244 So.2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA), writ discharged, 253 So.2d 421 (Fla.1971); compare State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986)(in criminal proceedi......