CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Alfred F. Wallace
This text of CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Alfred F. Wallace (CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Alfred F. Wallace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 12, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-2074 Lower Tribunal No. 18-13850 ________________
CRST Expedited, Inc., Appellant,
vs.
Alfred F. Wallace, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.
Campbell Conroy & O'Neil, P.C., and P. Brandon Perkins (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant.
The Gutierrez Firm and Jorge P. Gutierrez, Jr.; and Philip D. Parrish, P.A., and Philip D. Parrish, for appellees.
Before EMAS, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM. In this automobile negligence action for personal injuries, Appellant
CRST Expedited, Inc. appeals the final judgment entered against it. It argues
that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing testimony concerning the
property damage settlement between the parties. Specifically, there was
testimony as to who paid to fix Appellee Alfred Wallace’s vehicle. We agree.
This violates section 90.408, Florida Statutes. See § 90.408, Fla. Stat.
(2023) (“Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as
to validity or amount, as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in
negotiations concerning a compromise, is inadmissible to prove liability or
absence of liability for the claim or its value.”); Saleeby v. Rocky Elson
Const., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078, 1083 (Fla. 2009) (“The meaning of this statute is
equally clear. No evidence of settlement is admissible at trial on the issue of
liability.”); Holmes v. Area Glass, Inc., 117 So. 3d 492, 494-95 (Fla. 1st DCA
2013) (“In other words, disclosure of the fact of settlement or dismissal is
prohibited regardless of whether it is presented to the jury through evidence
or through some other means.”). As a result, we reverse and remand for a
new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Alfred F. Wallace, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crst-expedited-inc-v-alfred-f-wallace-fladistctapp-2025.