ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLEN BUZDIGIAN, 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.
Allstate Insurance appeals a jury verdict in favor of Buzdigian in an uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits case arising from a motorcycle accident. The appellate court affirms, rejecting Allstate's arguments about improper closing argument remarks and the trial court's denial of motions for new trial and remittitur.
The trial court did not err. Although the appellate court strongly admonishes counsel against improper 'send a message' arguments, the trial court properly handled the situation by immediately stopping the improper remarks, instructing the jury to disregard them, and chastising counsel when he repeated the error, which actually demonstrated to the jury that counsel had erred. The jury verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and remittitur was properly denied.
[1] A trial court properly handles improper closing argument remarks by immediately stopping the remarks and instructing the jury to disregard them.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for remittitur when the jury's verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although this court strongly admonishes counsel to avoid 'send a message' arguments like the one made here, we note that the trial court immediately put a stop to the improper remarks and advised the jury to disregard the remarks.”
Establishes the court's disapproval of improper closing arguments while recognizing that proper judicial correction can mitigate prejudice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen Buzdigian was involved in a motorcycle versus auto accident and sought uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance benefits from Allstate. A jury …
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 Improper Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) appeals the trial court’s orders denying Allstate’s motion for new trial and motion for remittitur, and the trial court’s final judgment entered in favor of Allen Buzdigian after jury trial. We affirm. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla.1998).
We write to address the issue raised by Allstate concerning remarks made by Buz-digian’s counsel during closing argument in this motorcycle vs. auto, uninsured/un-derinsured insurance benefits case.1 Although this court strongly admonishes counsel to avoid ‘send a message’ arguments like the one made here, we note that the trial court immediately put a stop to the improper remarks and advised the jury to disregard the remarks. Cf. Erie Ins. Co. v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Although Buzdigian’s counsel continued making his improper argument after he had been instructed to stop, he was further upbraided by the trial court for that second remark, to which Buzdigi-an’s counsel could only utter, “I’m sorry.” The effect of these exchanges was to demonstrate to the jury that Buzdigian’s counsel had erred such that the trial court was forced to not once, but twice, chastise him for his improper conduct.2 We think the trial court handled the situation properly.
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS and PALMER, JJ„ concur. . The exchange in question which gives rise to this point on appeal reads:
MR. HORROX: Now, you know, if these insurance policies are going to mean anything to Allstate, seems to me it's all got to start today with your jury verdict. Without that, Allstate's going to continue to have the attitude—
THE COURT: Whoa.
MR. EBBETS: Punitive argument.
THE COURT: Don't go there. It’s an improper argument. The jury is to disregard it.
MR. HORROX: It's all going to start with your verdict.
THE COURT: Wait. I just got finished saying that’s an improper argument.
MR. HORROX: I'm sorry. Now, I’ve read through the medical—
MR. EBBETS: I want to preserve a motion.
THE COURT: You may. Time is up.
. Because the jury verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for remittitur. See Fravel v. Haughey, 727 So. 2d 1033, 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Unlike the case in Fravel, where there was no reasonable relationship between the verdict and the damages, here the jury awarded an amount that was logical it they concluded that the motorcycle accident was but one contributing or exacerbating cause of Buzdi-gian’s medical condition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mercury Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. Moreta, 957 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In several Florida cases, comments similar to those expressed by opposing counsel in this case have been deemed to be curable by an appropriate instruction. See Howell, 901 So. 2d at 879-80; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Buzdigian, 776 So. 2d 1104, 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Wood, 535 So. 2d at 700. In this case, the trial court instructed Mercury’s counsel at the beginning of the trial that if Mr. More-ta’s counsel began “opening his heart,” then Mercury’s counsel was to object. Accordingly,…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1998)
- Erie Ins. Co. & Margaret Borman v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- William K. Fravel, D.M.D. v. Haughey, 727 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)