Carly Weiss Obtains Multiple Order Reversals

Miami Appellate Associate, Carly Weiss, successfully obtained a reversal of a trial court’s order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial on damages.

At trial, Plaintiff sought only non-economic pain and suffering damages, which required a finding that the injuries sustained as a result of the motor vehicle accident were permanent in order to recover under the PIP statute for non-economic damages. The jury returned a zero verdict award, finding Defendant/Insured caused Plaintiff’s legal cause of loss or injury, but those injuries were not permanent. The Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which the trial court granted, based on the notion that the Defendant failed to present disputed evidence on the issue of permanency such that the verdict finding of non-permanency of Plaintiff’s injuries was inadequate. In agreement with Defendant/Insured’s position, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed and held that the record “belies” the trial court’s finding that the evidence of a permanent injury was undisputed at trial. The Opinion explained that the defense CME doctor presented “nearly the opposite” testimony from Plaintiff’s treating doctor on the permanency of Plaintiff’s injuries, and there was other non-medical expert testimony evidence in the record which demonstrated permanency was contested at trial.   

In a separate trial, Carly successfully obtained a reversal of a trial court’s order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.    

The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss on personal jurisdiction after holding a non-evidentiary hearing. The trial court found that Defendant’s Declaration summarily denied the Complaint’s jurisdictional allegations and the trial court has both specific and general jurisdiction over the Defendant. On appeal, Defendant/Insured argued that its sworn declaration and other evidence demonstrated insufficient minimum contacts between Florida, the underlying lawsuit, and Defendant, such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant pursuant to the long-arm statute is improper. The Fourth District Court of Appeal determined the Defendant’s sworn Declaration “directly controverts the specific facts alleged in the complaint as a basis of jurisdiction.”  Thus, the Fourth District held that the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing because the evidence on jurisdiction is conflicting and cannot be reconciled without an evidentiary hearing. The matter was sent back to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional issues.