Daytona Beach Personal Injury Lawyers
Free Consultations 386.258.1622

Florida Fifth DCA rules that plaintiff counsel's improper closing argument, including repeated references to defendant insurance company's "greedy charade," warranted new trial

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]”).