768.0427: A Day Late and a Dollar Short for Wolf

(a) Facts

Case Name and Parties: Eli Wolf v. Exylena Williams, Fifth District Court of Appeal, Florida, Case No. 5D2023-3234 (Lower Tribunal Case No. 2019-CA-008017). The parties are Eli Wolf (Appellant) and Exylena Williams (Appellee).
What Happened Factually and Procedurally: In February 2019, a car accident occurred in Jacksonville involving Wolf and Williams. Williams filed a negligence lawsuit against Wolf in November 2019. Wolf admitted negligence but contested the severity of Williams’ injuries, arguing she suffered only short-term muscle sprains, while Williams claimed permanent spinal damage. Before trial, Wolf sought to apply section 768.0427, Florida Statutes—a new law effective March 2023 that limits evidence of medical expenses in personal injury cases—but the trial court denied this, as the statute applies only to cases filed after its effective date. During the trial, Williams used the term “defense organizations” when questioning witnesses about potential financial ties, prompting Wolf’s objection that it implied he had insurance; the court overruled this, finding it did not suggest liability insurance. The jury awarded Williams past and future damages for a permanent injury. Wolf appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Judgment: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on November 25, 2024.

(b) Issues

Statutory Application: Did the trial court err by refusing to apply section 768.0427 retroactively to limit evidence of Williams’ medical expenses?
Insurance Implication: Did the trial court err by allowing the term “defense organizations,” potentially implying to the jury that Wolf had liability insurance, thus warranting a new trial?

(c) Holding

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decisions:
- Section 768.0427 does not apply retroactively to cases filed before its effective date of March 24, 2023.
- Permitting the use of “defense organizations” was not an abuse of discretion and did not improperly imply insurance coverage.

(d) Rationale

Statutory Application: The court reviewed the issue de novo and held that section 768.0427 applies only to causes of action filed after March 24, 2023, as explicitly stated in its enacting legislation (Ch. 2023-15, § 30, Laws of Fla.). Since Williams filed her complaint in November 2019, the statute was inapplicable. This aligns with Florida’s constitutional framework (Art. III, § 9, Fla. Const.) and precedents like Bionetics Corp. v. Kenniasty (69 So. 3d 943) and Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Devon Neighborhood Ass’n (67 So. 3d 187), which reject retroactivity absent clear legislative intent.
Insurance Implication: The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing “defense organizations.” Citing Vazquez v. Martinez (175 So. 3d 372) and Herrera v. Moustafa (96 So. 3d 1020), it noted that while directly introducing insurance is improper, questioning financial ties to reveal bias is permissible. The term “defense organizations” was a neutral way to explore such ties without explicitly mentioning insurance, falling within the trial court’s broad discretion (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 377 So. 3d 1235).

(e) Commentary

First appellate ruling on retroactive application.