JERROLD SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
RANDALL W. BAKER, MARY HOCKETT BAKER, AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 personal injury case arising from an automobile accident, the trial court erred by excluding Smith's uninsured motorist (UM) carrier, State Farm, from the trial and preventing any mention of State Farm's party status to the jury. The appellate court reversed, holding that the jury must be informed when a UM insurer has been properly joined as a party.
The trial court erred in excluding State Farm and preventing the jury from knowing that the UM insurer was a party to the litigation. The jury must be made aware that the UM insurer is a party when the insurer has been properly sued and joined in the insured's action.
[1] A jury should be made aware that an uninsured motorist (UM) insurer is a party to the litigation when the insurer has been properly sued and joined in the insured's actio…
[2] Excluding the UM insurer from the jury's knowledge in an action where the insurer has been properly joined is a fiction that could adversely affect the insured's rights.
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“to have the UM insurer, which by statute is a necessary party, not be so named to the jury is a pure fiction.... The unknown consequences of such a fiction could adversely affect the rights of the insured who contracted and paid for this insurance.”
Establishes that UM insurers must be identified to the jury and that concealing their status is unfair to the insured.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHorbert Sexton and Mary Baker struck Smith's vehicle in a three-vehicle accident, causing Smith a compression fracture to his spine. The Bakers were u…
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 Necessary Party cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Chief Judge.
Jerrold Smith appeals the final judgment in this personal injury case arising from an automobile accident. We conclude that the trial court erred by its failure to permit the jury to know that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), the uninsured motorist (UM) carrier, was a party to this case.1
Horbert Sexton and Mary Baker struck Smith’s vehicle in a three-vehicle accident. Smith sustained a compression fracture to his spine. Smith sued Sexton, Baker, and Baker’s husband, Randall W. Baker. The Bakers were uninsured at the time of the incident; therefore, Smith sued his UM carrier, State Farm. On the morning of trial, with State Farm, Sexton, Mrs. Baker, and Smith present for pretrial motions, the trial court sua sponte, and over Smith’s objection, ruled that because Mrs. Baker was appearing pro se, the trial court would exclude State Farm from the trial, would disallow any ref-erenee to or mention of State Farm during the trial, and would have counsel for State Farm act as Mrs. Baker’s attorney during the trial. Throughout the course of the trial, no one mentioned State Farm in its capacity as a party to this litigation or as the UM carrier. State Farm’s name was not on the verdict form.
We conclude that this was error.
The trial court did not have the benefit of Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Krawzak, 675 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1996), a case issued subsequent to the trial court’s ruling. In Krawzak, the Florida Supreme Court made it clear that the jury should be made aware of the fact that the UM insurer is a party when the insurer has been properly sued and joined in the insured’s action against the underinsured tortfeasor. The court stated that “to have the UM insurer, which by statute is a necessary party, not be so named to the jury is a pure fiction.... The unknown consequences of such a fiction could adversely affect the rights of the insured who contracted and paid for this insurance.” Id. at 118.
We agree with the Fourth District Court’s statement that the failure to disclose UM status to the jury “seems inherently unfair to the plaintiff, deceptive to the jury, contrary to the insurance contract entered into between the plaintiff and its insurer, and contrary to statute.” Krawzak v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 660 So. 2d 306, 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), approved, 675 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, we conclude that under the circumstances in this case, Smith is entitled to a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . Smith also raises a discovery issue which we conclude can be resolved by the parties and the trial court upon retrial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lamz v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 748 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…rrier that has been joined as a necessary party to an action.” 724 So. 2d at 1189; see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 688 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Brush v. Palm Beach County, 679 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Smith v. Baker, 704 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We read Krawzak as requiring identification of a UM or UIM carrier as a [*321] party defendant and designation of the attorneys representing the carrier at trial. We do not read the case as mandating the revelation of the p…
-
Jerri Denise Agar v. State, 833 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…robation revocation. We affirm the revocation, but remand the ease for entry of a written revocation order conforming to the oral findings made by the trial court at the hearing. See Bell v. State, 766 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Berke v. State, 704 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). AFFIRMED and REMANDED. BARFIELD, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ„ concur.…
-
Bell v. State, 766 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…al from a judgment and sentences entered after revocation of probation, we affirm the revocation, but remand the case for entry of a written revocation order conforming to the oral findings made by the trial court at the hearing. See Berke v. State, 704 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). AFFIRMED and REMANDED for entry of a corrected revocation order. ERVIN, MINER and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Krawzak, 675 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1996)
- Krawzak v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. (#09245) & Candace Lyn Lippincott, 660 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)