In GEICO Gen’l Ins. Co. v. Tsao, No. 5D2023-0645 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 6, 2024), Caryn Bellus and Joye Walford obtained a reversal from the Fifth District and remanded for a new trial in underinsured motorist case. Plaintiff settled with the driver of the other vehicle for her $100,000 policy limits but alleged in her complaint that the driver was uninsured. Before trial, the lower court granted Plaintiff’s motion in limine to (1) exclude the fact that the tortfeasor had insurance (and was therefore underinsured), and (2) refer to the tortfeasor as uninsured. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff of nearly $14.5 million.
On appeal, the Fifth District reversed, holding the trial court’s ruling was wrong based on Florida law requiring “that when the uninsured or underinsured motorist carrier is properly named as a party defendant, it must be identified as such.” The Court found the uninsured versus underinsured distinction particularly important in this case because Geico had admitted liability, and thus by identifying Geico as Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist carrier, “the jury was misled that Geico admitted liability but refused [Plaintiff] any recovery.” The Court also agreed with Geico that Plaintiff employed a “pervasive and highly improper” theme of punishing Geico by repeatedly asking the jury to deliver justice, and improperly attempted to curry favor with the jury by interjecting “irrelevant and inflammatory remarks” regarding race and gender inequality in its closing argument. The Court also noted the size of the verdict was “highly unusual” based on evidence that Plaintiff continued to work her normal schedule, play tennis, travel, and otherwise go about her life without surgery or significant, ongoing treatment.
This opinion is important for the insurance defense bar because it expressly requires that an uninsured or underinsured carrier be properly identified to the jury, and spells out how failing to do so risks misleading the jury into returning an excessive verdict by improperly appealing to their emotions and sympathies. View the opinion here.
