Doughty v. Insurance Company, N.A.

3 Citing cases

  1. Aurbach v. Gallina

    721 So. 2d 756 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 25 times
    Observing that, while a party need not file a motion for new trial in seeking a remittitur or additur under section 768.74, Florida Statutes, "[o]f course, if a motion is granted under the statute, the `party adversely affected' may elect not to agree with the ruling, so that a new trial on damages may be necessary," citing section 768.74

    A trial court's determination regarding additur may be reversed on appeal only where there is a clear abuse of discretion. See Doughty v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 701 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Valinzo v. Cem-Kam, Inc., 698 So.2d 359, 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Airstar, Inc. v. Gubbins, 668 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). On a consortium claim, where sufficient undisputed evidence was presented that would require an award of at least nominal damages, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law.

  2. ITT Hartford Insurance Co. of the Southeast v. Owens

    816 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2002)   Cited 22 times
    Holding the relevant Florida statute requires a trial court to give the defendant the option of a new trial when additur is granted

    In Adams, this Court, in determining that section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), was constitutional, said: In Doughty v. Insurance Co. of North America, 701 So.2d 1225, 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), the Fourth District correctly observed, in determining the standard applicable to its review of a trial court order granting an additur, that this Court's precedent regarding the standard applicable to appellate review of an order granting a remittitur was instructive, there "being no difference, so far as we can see, between a remittitur and an additur." We therefore hold that section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), is a remedial statute designed to protect the substantive rights of litigants in motor vehicle-related suits.

  3. Davis v. Caterpillar Inc.

    787 So. 2d 894 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 10 times

    Moreover, a trial court's determination regarding additur may be reversed upon a finding of a clear abuse of discretion. See Doughty v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 701 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Valinzo v. Cem-Kam, Inc., 698 So.2d 359, 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Airstar, Inc. v. Gubbins, 668 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). As previously stated, the jury awarded Mr. Davis $50,000 for his past pain and suffering and $50,000 for future pain and suffering.