Legal Opinion · Dissent

Medina v. Peralta

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 11, 1998No. 96-1154Published

1DissentSchwartz, Chief Judge

In the light of the extremely weak evidence of the plaintiff’s injuries, the actual verdict of $15,000.00 returned by the jury, and the fact that the underinsurance covered only damages in excess of $100,000.00, I think the acknowledged Krawzak error involved in this case was no more than harmless. Furtado v. Walmer, 673 So.2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(Krawzak error harmless); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 688 So.2d 935, 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(Klein, J., specially concurring)(same). Because I do not agree with the majority that a per se error rule applies to this issue, I would…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mansfield v. RiveroSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
  2. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. MillerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997
  3. Furtado ex rel. Furtado v. WalmerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  4. Bennett v. FLA. FARM BUREAU CAS. INS. CO.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API