Tucker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2D01-5469.
| Decision Date | 23 April 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D01-5469.,2D01-5469. |
| Citation | 842 So.2d 1029 |
| Parties | Beverly TUCKER, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Elihu H. Berman, Clearwater, for Appellant.
Charles W. Hall of Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A., St. Petersburg and Charles Tyler Cone of Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A., Tampa, co-counsel for Appellee.
Beverly Tucker appeals a final judgment in favor of her uninsured motorist carrier, Allstate Insurance Company, in her suit to recover damages arising out of a 1994 automobile accident between Tucker and Thomas Savopoulos.1 Because we agree with Tucker's contention that the trial court erred in allowing Allstate to introduce collateral impeachment evidence, we reverse for a new trial.2
Tucker argues that the trial court erred in allowing Allstate to cross-examine her with evidence that in March 2000 she gave her employer the 1994 accident report, after she had altered the date to reflect a recent accident, and used the report to falsely explain her absence from work. We agree that the March 2000 incident was erroneously admitted because it had no relevance to the issues being tried and served only to impeach Tucker's credibility and reflect poorly on her character. See §§ 90.608-.610, Fla. Stat. (2001); Markowski v. Attel Bank Int'l, Ltd., 758 So.2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (); DeSantis v. Acevedo, 528 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) ().
Allstate argues that Tucker has not preserved this issue for review. Tucker raised and unsuccessfully argued the issue in a pretrial motion in limine. During opening statements, Allstate's counsel began discussing the March 2000 incident. Tucker's counsel objected, to which the trial court responded, "The Court's prior ruling will stand." Under these circumstances, we agree with Tucker that the issue was adequately preserved. See Webb v. Priest, 413 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- L.R. v. State
-
Harmon v. State
...irrelevant, it would have been futile, and even discourteous, for counsel to belabor the issue at that point. See Tucker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 842 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that under the circumstances of the court's former rulings, the issue for review was adequately preserved......
- AJV v. State
-
Witness
...that the witness was under influence of any substances at the time of the underlying incident. FLORIDA Tucker v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 842 So.2d 1029, 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In a suit against an insurer for uninsured motorist coverage, evidence that insured gave her employer an automobile a......
-
Witness examination: basic issues
...by the Florida Evidence Code. Markowski v. Attel Bank Int’l, Ltd. , 758 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Tucker v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 842 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). WITNESS EXAMINATION: BASIC ISSUES 6-13 Witness Examination: Basic Issues 6.4 Manhardt v. Tamton The questioning with respec......