Case ID: so2d_627/html/1236-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BLUE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael TOMPKINS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
    No. 93-00881.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Dec. 3, 1993.
    Jay Cooper, of Goldberg, Goldstein & Buckley, Ft. Myers, for appellant/eross-ap-pellee.
    Denise H. Kennedy and Curtright C. Truitt, of Tew & Truitt, P.A., Ft. Myers, for appellee, cross-appellant.
   BLUE, Judge.

In this claim for underinsured motorist benefits, Michael Tompkins contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury that future economic damages were recoverable only if he had sustained a permanent injury. We agree. See Ketchen v. Dunn, 619 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Therefore, we reverse for a new trial only on the issue of future economic damages.

Auto-Owners argues that any error in the given instruction was harmless because Tompkins’ evidence of future economic damages would not result in a verdict greater than the amount he recovered from the un-derinsured motorist. Although this may be a close question, we cannot say as a matter of law that no recovery is possible.

We find no merit in Tompkins’ second issue, nor in Auto-Owners’ cross appeal of the denial of attorney’s fees. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for a new trial solely on the issue of future economic damages.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.