A summary may be found below. The original opinion may be sourced here by hyperlink: https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2441343/opinion/Opinion_2023-1398.pdf
USAA Casualty Insurance Company,
Appellant,
vs.
David L. Deehl,
Appellee.
This is a personal injury action to recover economic and non-economic damages against USAA Casualty Insurance Company.
The incident arose from an accident involving Deehl. He and his then-girlfriend, Prosvirnova, were riding bicycles when a vehicle exited the park without stopping for the flashing red traffic light. To avoid the vehicle, Prosvirnova swerved into Deehl’s path, resulting in Deehl rear-ending her and falling, which caused serious injuries to his ankle. Deehl filed a claim with USAA, which was denied; consequently, he filed this case, and it went to trial.
During the trial, expert witness and bicycle safety and operation expert Peter Flucke testified that “Deehl was riding his bicycle appropriately and the emergent situation is what caused the crash.” He further stated, “The severity of the crash would have been typically much greater had he been hit by a car.” USAA presented no evidence to contradict this testimony but argued that Deehl, as the rear-bicyclist, should have been able to stop in time to avoid the collision.
Moreover, Deehl underwent three surgeries and was bedridden and wheelchair-bound for months. He also completed six years of extensive physical therapy. He faces the option of an ankle prosthetic or further surgery to avoid worsening symptoms related to his post-traumatic arthritis, including increasing pain and decreasing mobility. USAA did not present any evidence or witnesses to contradict Deehl’s claims but instead questioned his travel and cruise history.
The jury awarded Deehl damages totaling $500,000. The trial court later increased this amount to $750,000. USAA questioned both this increase and the denial of their motion for summary judgment and the issue of comparative fault.
The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court on the following grounds:
I. ADDITUR – Florida law authorizes a trial court to remedy an inadequate jury verdict by increasing the award of damages through additur. The record supports the trial court’s determination that additur was appropriate.
II. COMPARATIVE FAULT – Testimony from Deehl and Prosvirnova about the details of the incident, along with expert testimony from Flucke, established that Deehl was not at fault and acted in accordance with the law.
III. USAA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – Regarding the “rear-end presumption” or the law of the case doctrine, there was no error, as the evidence was such that a reasonable jury could have returned a verdict for Deehl.
Thus, there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.