STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
DAVID C. KNAPP AND LOGAN K. ATKINSON
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.
Although plaintiff's counsel improperly suggested empathy was a proper jury consideration during voir dire, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying State Farm's motion for mistrial.
[1] It is improper for counsel to suggest to prospective jurors during voir dire that empathy is a proper consideration in reaching a verdict.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm appealed a final judgment in an uninsured motorist benefits action. During jury voir dire, plaintiff's counsel suggested to prospective jur…
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 Uninsured Motorist Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-2219
DAVID C. KNAPP AND LOGAN K.
ATKINSON,
Appellees. ________________________________/
Opinion filed December 11, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, James H. Earp, Judge.
Warren B. Kwavnick and Kelly Lenahan, of Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
Christopher V. Carlyle, of The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, Orlando, and Andrew B. Pickett, of Andrew Pickett Law, PLLC, Melbourne, for Appellee David C. Knapp.
No Appearance for Appellee Logan K. Atkinson.
PER CURIAM.
In this action for uninsured motorist benefits, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) appeals an adverse final judgment. We agree with State Farm
2
that it was improper for plaintiff’s counsel to suggest to prospective jurors that empathy was a proper consideration in reaching a verdict. See, e.g., Joe v. State, 617 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (disapproving trial court’s instruction attempting to draw a distinction between sympathy and empathy). However, we conclude that the trial court’s denial of State Farm’s ensuing motion for mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. We affirm, without discussion, as to the other issues raised on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur.