Ramon Lasa Gonzalez v. SafePoint Insurance Company

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 12, 2024
• Docket: 2022-2195
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 12, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-2195 Lower Tribunal No. 18-39111 ________________

Ramon Lasa Gonzalez, et al., Appellants,

vs.

SafePoint Insurance Company, Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.

Font & Nelson, PLLC, Angel I. Rivera, and Jose P. Font (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.

Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, Frieda C. Lindroth, and Patrick M. Chidnese (Tampa), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Indus. Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa, 770 So. 2d 202, 204 (Fla.

3d DCA 2000) (“Even though the trial court orally denied the motions for

directed verdict during trial, [Rule 1.480(b)] treats the denial as constituting

a reservation of ruling.”); Carratelli v. State, 832 So. 2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2002) (finding challenge to defense counsel’s statement during jury

selection was not preserved for appellate review because motion was not

properly pursued and ruling not obtained based on “[a] plethora of Florida

cases [that] support the notion that a party must obtain a ruling from the trial

court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review”); Roosevelt v. State,

42 So. 3d 293, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (determining defendant failed to

serve timely post-verdict motion and preserve matter for appellate review

because “it was necessary that the defendant renew the motion [for directed

verdict] at the conclusion of the case and make the appropriate post-trial

motion”); Murray v. State, 27 So. 3d 781, 781–82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The

defense made timely motions for a directed verdict. However, [Rule]

1.480(b) has been interpreted as requiring a party to file, in addition, a post-

verdict motion for entry of judgment in accordance with the motion for a

directed verdict.”); see also Olsen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 343 So. 3d 172,

174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (finding no reversible error as to secondary issue

2 that could lead to reversal because jury answered “no” to threshold question

on verdict form).