- $26,996.04 for past medical damages;

- $377,944.56 for future medical damages;

- $27,375.00 for past non-economic damages;

- $383,250.00 for future non-economic damages;

- $13,140.00 for past lost consortium; and

- $183,960.00 for future lost consortium.

State Farm moved for remittitur, challenging all damages the jury awarded.

The trial court denied the remittitur, except for future medical damages. The trial court found that “not all of the future medical expenses” that the jury had awarded had been testified to with “sufficient certainty,” and it granted remittitur for future medical expenses only.

The trial court's order expressly stated, “This remittitur does not affect the non-economic damages or the damages awarded from [Mr.] Matos' consortium claim; those awards remain undisturbed.”

Subsequently, State Farm rejected the remittitur and, pursuant to Section 768.043, Florida Statutes, the trial court ordered a new trial. However, the trial court included all damages in its order for a new trial, stating, “The statute makes clear that the court has no discretion in this matter, and as such, the court must order a new trial as to damages only.”

Ms. Nieves and Mr. Matos appealed.

Florida Law

Section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes, provides:

In any action for the recovery of damages based on personal injury . . . arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, . . . wherein the trier of fact determines that liability exists on the part of the defendant and a verdict is rendered which awards money damages to the plaintiff, it shall be the responsibility of the court, upon proper motion, to review the amount of such award to determine if such amount is clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact. If the court finds that the amount awarded is clearly excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be. If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court reversed.

In its decision, the appellate court ruled that “when remittitur is granted solely for one type of damages, and then that remittitur is rejected, the subsequent new trial should be limited to the damages subject to the award of remittitur.”

According to the appellate court, to require a new trial as to all damage elements, including those that the record reflected were not in dispute, would result in “a needless waste of time and resources for both the litigants and the trial judge.”

Therefore, the appellate court ruled, a new trial limited to future medical damages was required “[b]ecause the remaining damages were supported by the evidence, [and] they [were] not subject to remittitur.” Accordingly, the appellate court quashed the order for a new trial on all damages and remanded for a new trial solely on future medical expenses.

The case is Nieves v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., No. 5D17-893 (Fla. Ct.App. May 25, 2018). Attorneys involved include: R. Barry Morgan, of Morgan Law Office, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants. DeeAnn J. Petika McLemore and Charles W. Hall, of Banker Lopez Gassler P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.