FOURTH DISTRICT HOLDS CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CLOSING ARGUMENT AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOCUSING SOLELY ON INSURER’S LIABILITY AND CULPABILITY WARRANTS NEW TRIAL

In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gold, No. 4D14-2362, 2016 WL 313993, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 27, 2016), Gold filed suit against State Farm for uninsured motorist benefits. Prior to closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury that:

Michael Gold was insured under a policy with [State Farm]. This insurance policy provided uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. [State Farm] is responsible for any injuries or damages sustained by [Gold] legally caused by the accident.

Thereafter, Gold’s attorney began his closing argument stating:

We’re here because Mr. Gold had purchased uninsured motorist coverage so this wouldn’t happen. State Farm has denied his claim and now he’s facing down a stack of medical bills. And he’s been carrying this burden with him until today and State Farm to this day, to this minute has never taken responsibility for the damages in the crash and for the injuries that are covered under this policy, and they’re not going to do it until you force them to do it with your verdict.

Gold’s attorney also utilized a Power Point presentation displaying a similar message. As a result, State Farm objected to the comments and the slide. The trial court sustained the objection. However, the jury was exposed to the slide for one or two minutes as they remained in the courtroom during the side-bar. Gold’s attorney then proceeded to end his closing argument by presenting another slide to the jury that said “Gold has done the right thing all along. Has the Defendant?” State Farm’s objection to this statement was overruled. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gold. State Farm filed a motion for new trial which was denied.

On appeal, the Fourth District explained that comments regarding an insurance company “refusing to own up to the responsibility they have” are highly prejudicial. Here, not only were the attorney’s statements prejudicial, but they were also projected to the jury by the Power Point. While the trial court sustained the first objection, the jury still had the opportunity to be influenced by the message because it was displayed throughout the side-bar.

The Court noted that visual aids are an effective way to communicate an idea or theme to the jury. However, the cumulative effect of the jury instructions and Gold’s attorney’s statements “painted a clear picture in the jury’s minds of a company breaking an obligation rather than a company simply attempting to determine actual damages attributable to the accident.” This was not harmless error. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

We always recommend that trial attorneys request any Power Point presentations from the opposing party well-before it is shown to the jury. This will help prepare the attorney for any objections he or she may have to raise and can also prevent the type of exposure that occurred here. If the attorneys and trial court could have examined the slides outside the presence of the jury, and before they were shown to the jury, then an appeal and new trial could likely have been avoided.

If you have any questions about this case or would like to refer an appellate matter, please contact our appellate attorneys.