National Security Fire & Casualty Co. v. King

District Court of Appeal of Florida

National Security Fire & Casualty Co. v. King

708 So. 2d 1016, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3201, 1998 WL 146268

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 1998

DocketNos. 96-3688, 97-0137

StatusPublished

This text of 708 So. 2d 1016 (National Security Fire & Casualty Co. v. King) 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.

Bluebook

National Security Fire & Casualty Co. v. King, 708 So. 2d 1016, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3201, 1998 WL 146268 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment in favor of Leon King against his automobile liability insurance carrier in a bad faith suit. The issue of whether there was an enforceable settlement in 1988 was properly raised in the [1017]*1017pleadings; its existence was a question of fact correctly submitted to the jury. There was no error in the court’s refusal to give the special jury instructions proposed by appellant, since they recited principles of law in the abstract, without relating them to the facts of the case. As worded, the proposed instructions would not have assisted the jury in reaching a verdict. See Sirmons v. Pittman, 138 So.2d 765, 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). The remarks of King’s counsel during closing were either not preserved or not error; for example, the extended metaphor of King as a beached starfish did not preclude the jury’s rational consideration of the ease. There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s handling of the motions for continuance. Finally, we find no error in the court’s eviden-tiary rulings.

Because the cross-appeal has been dismissed, we do not address the issues raised in it.

AFFIRMED.

STONE, C.J., GROSS, J., and BROWNELL, SCOTT M., Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment in favor of Leon King against his automobile liability insurance carrier in a bad faith suit. The issue of whether there was an enforceable settlement in 1988 was properly raised in the [1017]*1017pleadings; its existence was a question of fact correctly submitted to the jury. There was no error in the court’s refusal to give the special jury instructions proposed by appellant, since they recited principles of law in the abstract, without relating them to the facts of the case. As worded, the proposed instructions would not have assisted the jury in reaching a verdict. See Sirmons v. Pittman, 138 So.2d 765, 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). The remarks of King’s counsel during closing were either not preserved or not error; for example, the extended metaphor of King as a beached starfish did not preclude the jury’s rational consideration of the ease. There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s handling of the motions for continuance. Finally, we find no error in the court’s eviden-tiary rulings.

Because the cross-appeal has been dismissed, we do not address the issues raised in it.

AFFIRMED.

STONE, C.J., GROSS, J., and BROWNELL, SCOTT M., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 1016, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3201, 1998 WL 146268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-security-fire-casualty-co-v-king-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack