STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. KNAPP (2020)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. David C. KNAPP and Logan K. Atkinson, Appellees.

Case No. 5D19-2219

Decided: December 11, 2020

Warren B. Kwavnick and Kelly Lenahan, of Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant. Christopher V. Carlyle, of The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, Orlando, and Andrew B. Pickett, of Andrew Pickett Law, PLLC, Melbourne, for Appellee David C. Knapp. No Appearance for Appellee Logan K. Atkinson.

In this action for uninsured motorist benefits, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) appeals an adverse final judgment. We agree with State Farm that it was improper for plaintiff's counsel to suggest to prospective jurors that empathy was a proper consideration in reaching a verdict. See, e.g., Joe v. State, 617 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (disapproving trial court's instruction attempting to draw a distinction between sympathy and empathy). However, we conclude that the trial court's denial of State Farm's ensuing motion for mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. We affirm, without discussion, as to the other issues raised on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM.

EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network