Geico General Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Patrick N. Yvars, Appellee. (2025)

GEICO General Insurance Company (“Appellant”), the Defendant in the negligence action below, seeks reversal of a final judgment entered in favor of the Patrick Yvars (“Yvars”), the Plaintiff and Appellee. Appellant raises two issues—first, that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding its expert witnesses under Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981); and second, that the trial court improperly entered a judgment in an amount exceeding the applicable uninsured motorist insurance policy.

We find no error in the trial court's exclusion of Appellant's experts under Binger, and we affirm that exclusion without further discussion. We do, however, find merit in the second argument. We agree with the rationale applied by our sister courts in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Finson, 385 So. 3d 196, 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hudnall, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1454, D1454, (Fla. 5th DCA July 3, 2025), both of which concluded that under Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016), judgments in uninsured motorist cases may not be entered in an amount exceeding policy limits. Therefore, we reverse the judgment with instructions that an amended final judgment be entered in Yvars's favor for the amount of $20,000.00, which is the policy's uninsured motorist liability limit. In a footnote, the judgment shall also reflect the net verdict amount that Yvars could recover were he to prevail on a bad faith claim against Appellant—$1,367,943.86. See Finson, 385 So. 3d at 196-97; Hudnall, 50 Fla. L. Weekly at D1454.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.

PER CURIAM.

STARGEL, NARDELLA and SMITH, JJ., concur.