Opinion
3D22-2195
06-12-2024
Ramon Lasa Gonzalez, et al., Appellants, v. SafePoint Insurance Company, Appellee.
Font &Nelson, PLLC, Angel I. Rivera, and Jose P. Font (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants. Bickford &Chidnese, LLP, Frieda C. Lindroth, and Patrick M. Chidnese (Tampa), for appellee.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Lower Tribunal No. 18-39111 An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.
Font &Nelson, PLLC, Angel I. Rivera, and Jose P. Font (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.
Bickford &Chidnese, LLP, Frieda C. Lindroth, and Patrick M. Chidnese (Tampa), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Indus. Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa, 770 So.2d 202, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ("Even though the trial court orally denied the motions for directed verdict during trial, [Rule 1.480(b)] treats the denial as constituting a reservation of ruling."); Carratelli v. State, 832 So.2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (finding challenge to defense counsel's statement during jury selection was not preserved for appellate review because motion was not properly pursued and ruling not obtained based on "[a] plethora of Florida cases [that] support the notion that a party must obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review"); Roosevelt v. State, 42 So.3d 293, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (determining defendant failed to serve timely post-verdict motion and preserve matter for appellate review because "it was necessary that the defendant renew the motion [for directed verdict] at the conclusion of the case and make the appropriate post-trial motion"); Murray v. State, 27 So.3d 781, 781-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ("The defense made timely motions for a directed verdict. However, [Rule] 1.480(b) has been interpreted as requiring a party to file, in addition, a postverdict motion for entry of judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict."); see also Olsen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 343 So.3d 172, 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (finding no reversible error as to secondary issue that could lead to reversal because jury answered "no" to threshold question on verdict form).