.

Defense Digest

District Court of Appeals Tell Plaintiffs They ‘Can’t Have Their Cake and Eat It Too’

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2025

March 1, 2025

By Jacksonville, Florida Casualty Department

Key Points:

  • In Mickler v. Triplett, 397 So.3d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 15, 2024), the Court of Appeal thwarted a new strategy from the plaintiffs’ bar to remove the causation question from the hands of the jury. 
  • Ruling helps shield defendants from having to sacrifice their expert witnesses in order to preserve the causation question for a jury.

The question of causation is often the crux of personal injury litigation, particularly in cases involving pre-existing conditions. In Rebecca Diley v. Bonnie Lee Mickler, a 2023 trial in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Duval County, Florida, the defense confronted this challenge head-on. The plaintiff, Rebecca Triplett, alleged injuries from a 2019 rear-end motor vehicle accident, yet her medical history revealed strikingly similar injuries from prior accidents in 2009 and 2017. The defense argued that her injuries predated the 2019 accident and, furthermore, that she suffered no new harm. However, an unexpected trial ruling significantly altered the trajectory of the case—removing the issue of causation from jury consideration and leading to a substantial plaintiff’s verdict. This decision ultimately set the stage for an appellate battle, culminating in a Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal ruling that reaffirmed the jury’s role in determining causation and reshaped defense strategy in bodily injury cases statewide.

In 2020, Rebecca Triplett sued the defendant, claiming injuries arising from a rear-end motor vehicle accident occurring on September 6, 2019. Notably, the injuries being claimed as arising from this accident were similar to injuries Triplett suffered in two prior motor vehicle accidents—one in 2009 and the other in 2017. One of the defenses focused on these prior injuries. The defendant contended, at least in part, that Triplett’s alleged injuries pre-existed the September 6, 2019, motor vehicle accident. Additionally, going one step further, the defendant argued Triplett did not suffer any injuries as a result of the 2019 accident. 

Through years of litigation and discovery, the defendant refined the key issues for trial. Specifically, one of the primary issues that remained to be litigated was whether the defendant’s negligence, if any, was a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage to Triplett.

The trial lasted a full week, including substantial testimony from the plaintiff, retained experts, and treating physicians. On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Triplett’s counsel moved for directed verdict as to causation. The plaintiff argued, since the defendant’s own expert witnesses testified that Triplett suffered and was treated for a strain or sprain of her neck as a result of the motor vehicle accident, the defendant’s negligence was the legal cause of at least some damage to the plaintiff. 

On the final day of trial, although initially denied, the court ultimately granted the partial directed verdict. This decision had an immense prejudicial effect on the defense. 

Typically, and prior to the court granting Triplett’s motion in this case, the first question on the verdict form is some version of, “Was the negligence of the defendant, a legal cause of loss, injury or damage to plaintiff?” This initial question posed to a jury precedes any additional questions regarding the amount of monetary damages the plaintiff may be entitled to as a result of such negligence. 

By granting the plaintiff’s motion, the court removed the issue of causation from the jury instructions and that initial question from the verdict form. As a result, the jury was simply asked to essentially answer “how much” money Triplett was entitled to. The jury subsequently returned a large verdict, arguably, in part, due to the court’s decision to remove the issue of causation from the jury. 

The defense moved for a new trial as a result, which the court denied, and the issue was taken up to Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. 

In Mickler v. Triplett, 397 So.3d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 15, 2024), a big win for defense counsel, the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict, and the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. This ruling, and the growing trend of other Florida district courts following suit, thwarted this new plaintiffs’ strategy to remove the causation question from the hands of the jury. 

In Lancheros v. Burke, 375 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), a case with similar facts, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on causation, stating: “[a] jury is not free to reject uncontradicted expert findings by multiple doctors. And because [Appellants’ expert] said, yes, the chiropractic care was reasonable and necessary and related to the accident, then that establishes legal cause.” Id., 375 So.3d at 928. The defense in Lancheros contested causation, refuted the plaintiff’s causation evidence, and offered their own evidence showing the plaintiff’s injuries could have occurred for reasons not related to the incident at issue in the case. In Lancheros, the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the directed verdict, siding with the defense. 

Prior to the appellate decisions, not only did these trial court rulings jeopardize the defense’s legal strategy, but the retained experts were becoming increasingly concerned with potential credibility issues. In many motor vehicle accident cases, expert witnesses testify a plaintiff only suffered a sprain or strain, which would require approximately six to eight weeks of conservative treatment. This testimony, while denying the existence of a permanent injury, allowed defense experts to strike a middle ground in explaining a plaintiff’s initial pain complaints experienced after an accident. 

However, these trial court rulings forced the defendants to sacrifice their expert witnesses in order to preserve the causation question for a jury, even if it resulted in an uphill (if not near impossible) battle; to argue causation without expert witness testimony. 

Thankfully, these recent Florida Appellate Court decisions on this topic shield defendants who were being boxed into an impossible corner. Defendants will no longer have to decide whether to forgo a causation defense at trial when their experts testify that a plaintiff suffered a sprain or strain. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed.