Allstate Insurance Co. v. Daugherty

4 Citing cases

  1. Ford Motor Co. v. Stimpson

    115 So. 3d 401 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Each ground will be addressed separately. A trial court's grant of a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). First, as to the court's finding of fundamental error, in Fravel v. Haughey, 727 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), our court explained the concept of fundamental error as it applies to civil lawsuits.

  2. Ford Motor Co. v. Stimpson

    Case No. 5D11-2787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2013)

    Each ground will be addressed separately. A trial court's grant of a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). First, as to the court's finding of fundamental error, in Fravel v. Haughey, 727 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), our court explained the concept of fundamental error as it applies to civil lawsuits.

  3. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse

    681 So. 2d 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 26 times
    In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 681 So.2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court held that a finding of permanent injury and an award of future medical expenses required an award for future pain and suffering as a matter of law, relying on Daigneault and Mason.

    See Cowen v. Thornton, 621 So.2d 684, 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 634 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1994); see also Simpson. But see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (distinguishing between internal inconsistencies in verdict and inconsistency with proof). The second problem arising from the use of special interrogatories to itemize damages is the standard under which the court should review a jury verdict where there are alleged inconsistencies in the jury's findings on damages.

  4. Simpson v. Stone

    662 So. 2d 959 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Stone v. Simpson, 62 Ala. 194, a similar construction was placed upon the agricultural lien law of that State, and it was held that, under the statute, a crop lien had "precedence over all prior mortgages, and all prior liens, except that of the landlord for rent."

    Moreover, we note that defendant Stone, as well as the trial court, could have sought to minimize the risk of another trial by raising this issue prior to the discharge of the jury. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So.2d 612, 613 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Cowen, 621 So.2d at 688 (Altenbernd, J., concurring); Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church, 476 So.2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We accordingly reject Stone's claim that the Simpsons waived their right to contest the adequacy of the verdict posttrial.