.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Uninsured versus underinsured? There is a big difference, and the jury should know!

GEICO General Insurance Company v. Tsao, Fla. 5th DCA, No. 5D2023-0645, December 6, 2024

December 1, 2024

by Michael A. Packer

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a jury trial verdict in favor of the plaintiffs/insureds in an underinsured motorist case in which the the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion in limine in order to prevent the jury from hearing the tortfeasor was “underinsured” as opposed to “uninsured.” 

In this case, the tortfeasor (who rear-ended Brook Tsao), in fact, had $100,000 in liability insurance that was paid to the plaintiffs in a settlement. The plaintiffs then proceeded against their uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier. 

In support of their argument, the plaintiffs claimed, if the tortfeasor was referred to as “underinsured,” it would lead to speculation that there may have been a settlement. In its opposition, GEICO argued the jury should know the tortfeasor had liability insurance, which the plaintiffs contended was less than their total damages. GEICO further argued, to use the term “uninsured” rather than “underinsured” would “create an impermissible charade” and mislead the jury into believing GEICO, while admitting liability, was refusing to acknowledge the plaintiffs were entitled to any recovery at all.

Following Florida precedence, the appellate court explained the importance of the jury being made aware of whether the insurance company, as properly named in the lawsuit, is an “uninsured” or “underinsured” motorist carrier. The court concluded on the issue, “[c]orrectly identifying the tortfeasor as underinsured, rather than merely uninsured, aligns with both the statutory definitions and judicial rulings aimed at ensuring a fair and informed trial process.” 


 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – December 2024 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.