ESTATE OF GEORGE GIMBERT AND AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHERYL LAMB, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this appeal from a fraud and negligence case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict awarding $1.5 million in punitive damages against Aetna for fraudulently inducing the plaintiff to sign a release, but reversed the $1.5 million compensatory damages award against the estate due to prejudicial joinder of the fraud and negligence claims.
The court affirmed the jury's fraud verdict against Aetna and the punitive damages award, finding substantial competent evidence supported the finding that Aetna committed fraud. However, the court reversed the compensatory damages award against the estate because the trial court erred in not severing the negligence and fraud actions, resulting in undue prejudice to the estate.
[1] A jury verdict for fraud against an insurance company will be affirmed if supported by substantial, competent evidence.
[2] A new trial on compensatory damages may be ordered when a trial court errs in not severing negligence and fraud actions, and the defendant estate is unduly prejudiced by…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We find no merit in Aetna's arguments concerning this issue as there is substantial, competent evidence to support the jury's verdict that Aetna committed fraud against Lamb.”
The court upheld the fraud verdict against Aetna, finding sufficient evidence that the adjuster misrepresented the release terms.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Gimbert struck Cheryl Lamb with his automobile. Aetna, Gimbert's insurance carrier, contacted Lamb and she signed a release of both bodily inju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Severance Of Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The appellants, the Estate of George Gimbert and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, challenge the jury’s awards of 1.5 million dollars in compensatory damages against the estate and 1.5 million dollars in punitive damages against Aetna. We reverse the award of compensatory damages and remand for a new trial on the issue of the amount of those damages only.
This case arose out of an automobile accident that occurred when George Gim-bert struck the appellee, Cheryl Lamb. Aetna, Gimbert’s insurance carrier, contacted Lamb, and she ultimately signed a release of her bodily injury claim, as well as her property damage claim, against Gim-bert. Lamb sued Aetna for fraud, alleging that Aetna’s adjuster, Marilyn Watson, defrauded her into releasing her bodily injury claim by misrepresenting to her that she had to sign a release of both her bodily injury and property damage claims in order to settle the latter claim. Lamb also sued Gimbert’s estate for her bodily injuries.
The fraud action against Aetna boiled down to Watson’s word against Lamb’s regarding the circumstances surrounding the signing of the release. We find no merit in Aetna’s arguments concerning this issue as there is substantial, competent evi dence to support the jury’s verdict that Aetna committed fraud against Lamb.
The liability action against the estate was resolved by a directed verdict, which the appellants do not contest in this appeal. We find, however, that we must reverse the compensatory damages awarded by the jury against the estate because we agree with the appellants that the trial court erred in not severing the negligence and fraud actions. We find that the estate was unduly prejudiced by the trying of the two actions together because of the nature of the claim against Aetna and the fact that Aetna’s net worth was revealed during the trial.
Accordingly, we affirm that part of the final judgment awarding Lamb 1.5 million dollars in punitive damages against Aetna, but we reverse that part of the final judgment awarding her compensatory damages against the estate. We remand for a new trial on the issue of the amount of compensatory damages only.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re THE Matter OF THE Protest OF Election Returns & Absentee Ballots IN the November 4, 707 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ertainly ample evidence of fraud to support the findings of the trial court’s Final Judgment. See Peacock v. Wise, 351 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); see also generally Wald v. Shenkman, 664 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Estate of Gimbert v. Lamb, 601 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We are confronted with the question of whether the trial court erred in finding that the remedy for the instant absentee voting fraud was to order a new election. We hold that it did. An important decision concerning the issue…