On May 11, 2018, in
Domino’s Pizza v. Wiederhold, et al., No. 5D16-2794, the Florida Fifth DCA ruled that plaintiff counsel’s
improper closing argument in a first party UM coverage dispute case warranted
a new trial. The Fifth DCA found improper not only the plaintiff counsel’s
repeated references to the defendant insurance company’s “greedy
charade,” but also counsel’s advice to the jury “to
tell [Domino’s] what you think” (an impermissible “send
a message” argument), counsel’s “golden rule”
arguments implicitly asking the jurors to put themselves in the shoes
of the plaintiff) and counsel’s insertion of personal opinions (“I
really stand in awe [of the plaintiff]”).
