VALDA BELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, CLAIRE MAYS, LORENZO JOHN AMERI AND EMOMOTIMI S. BRISIBE, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 2010-03-24
No. 4D08-4471
GROSS, C.J., FARMER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
30 So. 3d 684 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2010) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Harmless Error Doctrine

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Harmless Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Valda Bell (“appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice her second amended complaint. The complaint was filed by the lead driver involved in a rear-end collision against, among others, the insurance company of the motorist in the rear vehicle. The appellant alleged that the insurance company failed to timely disclose, in violation of section 627.4137, Florida Statutes (2007), that it had agreed to provide coverage for any excess judgment.

The parties present valid arguments as to the interpretation of the terms of section 627.4137. However, we find no reversible error where the appellant was awarded a $2,690,806 verdict — which was promptly paid by the insurance company— under a policy of automobile insurance with bodily injury liability limits of $50,000 per person. See Mackey v. Reserve Ins. Co., 349 So.2d 830, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (“The favorable verdict rendered the error harmless to appellants.”); § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2007).

Affirmed.

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Dumais v. State, 40 So. 3d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
    …eing and eluding because the state did not prove the “agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings” element: Gorsuch v. State, 797 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Jackson v. State, 818 So. 2d 539, 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); and Slack v. State, 30 So. 3d 684, 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). However, none of those cases involved a defendant admitting that he knew he was fleeing from the police, as occurred here. We find that fact significant. The purpose of requiring the state to prove that “the law enforcement…
    1 / 2
  • Hanson v. State, 92 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
    …case was legally insufficient to establish that the [*289] pursuing officer had “agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle” as required by section 316.1935(2), Florida Statutes (2010). See Slack v. State, 30 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Gorsuch v. State, 797 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). However, because the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser included offense set forth in section 316.1935(1) and the jury necessarily found that the…
  • Ellis v. State, 258 So. 3d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw