Defense Resolves Uninsured Motorist Case at Policy Limits Mid Trial in Orange County, FL

CSK Defense Team
Orlando Partners Ryan Sawyer and Scott Shelton

Case Summary
This case arose from a serious car accident that resulted in a total loss of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff reported multiple orthopedic injuries following the crash, including an ankle fracture that was not initially identified in the emergency room. Over time, the Plaintiff treated with several medical providers and initially claimed additional neck and back injuries. Prior to trial, however, the Plaintiff withdrew those spine-related claims.

The case proceeded against a Defendant auto insurer under an uninsured motorist claim. Liability was admitted, and causation was partially agreed upon. The uninsured motorist policy limits of $40,000 had already been tendered before defense counsel became involved.

Defense Strategy
The CSK Defense Team focused on presenting a clear and practical narrative to the jury. During opening statements, the team emphasized gaps in the Plaintiff’s medical treatment, evidence of recovery, and concerns regarding potential bias from the Plaintiff’s treating physicians.

Shortly after openings and just before the first witness testified, Plaintiff’s counsel produced previously undisclosed medical records that affected issues already discussed with the jury. Although the court allowed the records into evidence over defense objection, it permitted the defense to depose the treating physician during the lunch recess. The deposition proved pivotal, as the physician’s testimony undermined key aspects of the Plaintiff’s case and reinforced the defense’s arguments regarding treatment and credibility.

Outcome
Following the mid-trial deposition, the Plaintiff accepted the previously tendered $40,000 uninsured motorist policy limits. No verdict was rendered.

The resolution protected the Defendant from the risk of an inflated jury award and avoided potential exposure to a fee claim. The result reflects the value of disciplined trial preparation, careful evaluation of medical evidence, and the ability to adapt quickly when unexpected developments arise during trial. It also demonstrates how targeted cross-examination and timely depositions can significantly shift the dynamics of a case, even after a jury has been empaneled.