This summary highlights recent Florida state appellate decisions and published federal court opinions relevant to insurance practitioners throughout Florida.
Caballero-Quinones v. Wilder
Fla. 6th DCA (2026) – Evidence / Trial Procedure / Admissibility of Post-Accident Investigations
Holding
Reversed and remanded. The trial court erred by excluding the Sheriff’s Office’s post-accident investigation and conclusions based on evidentiary privileges that did not apply. The case was returned to the trial court to determine whether the evidence should be excluded under a standard balancing test that weighs probative value against unfair prejudice.
Discussion
This Florida appellate decision arises from a multi-vehicle accident involving a deputy who entered an intersection with lights and sirens activated. He collided with another driver, which caused a second collision with the plaintiff’s stopped vehicle. Liability was disputed between the deputy and the other driver.
The Sheriff’s Office conducted multiple internal investigations and concluded the deputy was at fault. The deputy disagreed with those findings. Before trial, the Sheriff’s Office successfully excluded those investigative findings. It argued they were protected by legal doctrines commonly applied to crash reports, traffic citations, and post-incident corrective measures.
The appellate court held that those doctrines did not apply to the Sheriff’s Office’s internal investigation and conclusions. As a result, the trial court improperly excluded that evidence. However, the trial court did not address whether the evidence should be excluded under Florida’s general evidentiary rule, Section 90.403. That rule allows exclusion if the evidence’s potential to unfairly prejudice or mislead the jury substantially outweighs its usefulness.
The appellate court declined to decide that issue for the first time on appeal. It remanded the case for the trial court to perform that analysis. The court also certified a conflict on whether appellate courts may conduct that type of evidentiary balancing in the first instance. A dissenting judge agreed that the original reasons for exclusion were incorrect. However, the dissent would have upheld the verdict based on relevance and prejudice concerns.
Practical Implications
- Internal accident investigations that assign fault may be admissible in Florida state court. This increases potential liability exposure in insurance claims.
- Common evidentiary protections tied to crash reports or citations may not apply to internal findings. Claims professionals should evaluate how those materials are created and used.
- Failure to address Section 90.403 balancing at the trial level can create appellate risk and may result in retrials.
Dolan v. Negron
Fla. 4th DCA (2026) – Damages / Remittitur / Inconsistent Verdicts
Holding
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on all damages, including permanency. The trial court should have reduced the damages award because it exceeded the evidence. The inconsistencies in the verdict required a full retrial rather than a partial correction.
Discussion
In this Florida car accident case, the jury awarded damages for past and future medical expenses and lost wages. Several of those awards exceeded the amounts supported by the evidence presented at trial. The jury also found that the plaintiff did not suffer a permanent injury. Despite that finding, it awarded future damages and issued a total award of exactly $1 million.
The defendant moved for remittitur, which is a request for the court to reduce a damages award that is not supported by the evidence. The trial court denied that request.
On appeal, the Fourth District held that damages must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. The trial court erred in failing to reduce the award. However, the court determined that reducing the award alone would not resolve the issues.
The verdict contained clear inconsistencies. It awarded future damages despite a finding of no permanent injury. It also reflected a round-number award that suggested a compromise among jurors. Because of these problems, the appellate court ordered a new trial on all damages. That retrial includes the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent injury.
Practical Implications
- Economic damage awards must align with the evidence. Unsupported awards create exposure to remittitur or reversal on appeal.
- Inconsistent jury findings, especially those involving permanency and future damages, can result in a full retrial. This increases claim duration and costs.
- Claims evaluation and settlement strategy should consider the risk that irregular verdicts may not withstand appellate review.
Johnson v. Miami Dade County
11th Cir. (2026) – Employment / Discrimination and Retaliation / Summary Judgment
Holding
Affirmed. Even assuming the plaintiff established a prima facie case, the employer provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination. The plaintiff failed to show that reason was a pretext, meaning a false or misleading explanation.
Discussion
In this federal court opinion, the plaintiff brought claims for racial discrimination and retaliation following termination. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer. This means the case was resolved without a trial because the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s claims.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit applied two established legal frameworks used in employment cases. These are the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis and the “convincing mosaic” approach. Under both frameworks, the court assumed the plaintiff met the initial burden of presenting a claim.
The employer then articulated a legitimate reason for the termination. The burden shifted back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the stated reason was a pretext for unlawful discrimination or retaliation. The court found that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to meet that burden.
As a result, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the case.
Practical Implications
- Well-documented, legitimate employment decisions remain critical in defending discrimination and retaliation claims in federal court.
- Many employment-related insurance claims turn on whether a plaintiff can prove pretext. This issue is often central to exposure analysis.
- Early evaluation of the employer’s stated rationale and supporting documentation can significantly impact claims handling and settlement posture.
Our team is available to discuss the topics written here and ready to provide additional information contained in this article. Contact us for more information.
