USAA Casualty Insurance Company v. David L. Deehl
In an uninsured motorist action arising from a bicycle crash caused by a phantom vehicle, a jury awarded $500,000 and apportioned 30% fault to the plaintiff. The trial court granted JNOV eliminating the plaintiff's comparative fault and ordered an additur increasing past and future non-economic damages from $125,000 each to $750,000 each; when USAA rejected the additur, the court ordered a new trial on non-economic damages. The Third DCA affirmed all three challenged orders, finding no abuse of discretion in the additur and no error in the JNOV or the denial of USAA's summary judgment motion.
Key facts
- USAA Casualty Insurance Company, an uninsured motorist (UM) insurer, and David L. Deehl, a bicyclist injured when struck by a phantom vehicle while riding, litigated an UM claim following a jury verdict awarding $500,000 in damages with 30% comparative fault apportioned to Deehl.
- At trial, lay and expert testimony established that Deehl rode lawfully as the rear bicyclist and that a sudden emergency created by the phantom vehicle caused the crash; the jury awarded $125,000 each for past and future non-economic damages but apportioned fault to Deehl.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion is a useful plaintiff-side authority on additur: it confirms that a trial court may substantially increase non-economic awards where the injury evidence is uncontradicted, and endorses a detailed… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.