FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 77 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 8- cv -0 06 60 -HES-MC R DAVID ANGE LUCCI an d KATHLE EN ANGE LUCCI, Pl ai nt iff s- App el lant s, ve rs us GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 19 , 20 11 ) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Thi s ca se rai se s t wo ch al le ng es to ev id en ti ary ru li ng s m ad e b y th e tr ia l co urt.The fir stin vo lv es a vi ol at io n o f th e Fl or id a p riv il eg e ag ai ns t t he us e o f acc id en t

rep orts an d t he ir c on te nt s attri al . The s eco ndrul in g c on cern s a v io la ti on of t he pa rti es ’ pr e-t ria l ag reem en t n otto di sc us s t he Pla in ti ffs ’ fin an ces . Becau se we ag ree wi th th e Ang el uc ci s tha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enit al lo wedtes ti m on y

ab ou t t he acci de ntrep ort, we v acat e an d re m an d fo r a n ew tr ia l.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The App el la nt s, Dav idan d Kat hl een Ann Ang el uc ci , were i nv ol ve d i n acar acci de ntwhi le on va cat io n i n F lo rid a o n J un e 1 5, 2 00 7. Dav idtes ti fie d t ha t h e imm ed ia te ly felta sh arp pa in inhi s n eck , andKath le entes ti fie d Dav idap pe aredto be in pa inan d was ho ld in g h is ne ck . Thei r co us in als o t es ti fie d t ha t Dav idgrabb ed hi s n eck , hadtro ub le m ov in g i t, an d h adtro ub le ge tt in g o utof t he car. Imm ed ia te ly aft er the acci de nt , Kath le endro ve Davi d t o awalk -in cli ni c b utwas t ol d tha t an x- ray te ch ni ci anwas n oton du ty. Davi d c ho se no t t o g o t o t he em erg en cy roo m th enso as n otto di sapp oi nthi s ch il dr en , who want edto go to th e b each . After a sh ort v is itto th e b each , du rin g wh ic h Dav idsatin th e car , th e Ang el uc ci s re tu rn ed to th e co us in ’s ho us e, an d a no th er fa m il y m em be r dr ov e Dav idto th e em erg en cy ro om . A CT scan rev eal edev id en ce o f a d is rupt io n o f a p rev io us cerv ic al fus io n an d Dav idlat er s ou gh t t reat m en t fr om hi s o rth op ed ic su rg eo n a t h om e who als o 2fo un d e vi de nc e o f a d is rupt io n a t t he si te of apre vi ou s ce rv ic al fus io n.

Dav idha d b een in

jure d i n t wo s eri ou s ca r acc id en ts be fo re the 20 07 acci de nt . In 1 99 6 h e was rear -en de d, s us ta in eda ne ckin jury, an d h adfus io n su rg ery atth e C5 -C6 lev el . In 2 00 3 h e was ag ai n re ar-e nd edan d u nd erwen t a fu si on at t he ne xtlo wer l ev el , C6- C7 . After t he 20 03 acci de nthe ret ire d wi th di sabi li ty ben efi ts fro m

hi s jo b a s a t ow t ru ckop erat orforth e Co nn ect ic ut Dep artm en t o f Tran sp orta ti on . As a re su ltof the 20 07 acci de nt , th e Ang el uc ci s s ou gh t u ni ns ur edm ot or is t be ne fit s fr om

App el le e GEICO. GEICO de ni edth os e b en efi ts be cau se itcla im ed th atDavi d h adno t s uf

fere d a ny perm an en t i njurie s an d s o d idno t m eetFlo rid a’s au to m ob il e n o- fau ltth res ho ld , fou ndat F la . Sta t. § 62 7.7 37 . There aft er, the Ang el uc ci s fi le d s ui t ag ai ns t GEICO, s eek in g t he be ne fit s. Th e p art ie s d is pu te d t he se ve rit y of t he im pa ctsu ffer eddu rin g t he acci de nt , with t he Ang el uc ci s p ortra y in g th e acc id en t as ser io us an d GEICO c la im in g i t was a m in orim pa ctacci de nt . Each si de pro du cedexpe rts who tes ti fie d abo utwhet he r Dav idha d s uf fere d ape rm an en t ag gr av at io n o f a p re-e xi st in g n eckin jury, sp eci fic al ly whe th er the acci de ntha d cau se d adi srup ti on of t wo p rev io us cerv ic al fus io n s ur ge rie s. Two o f th e Ang el uc ci s’ exp ertwitne ss es were Dav id ’s tre at in g p hysic ia ns who ha d b een tre at in g h im

si nc e b efo re 2 00 3, an d b ot h h adpa rti ci pa te d i n h is cerv ic al fus io n 3su rg ery. All th ree o f hi s ex pe rts tes ti fie d t ha t t he 20 03 sca ns sh owe d abo ny fus io n

orat l eas t a f

ib ro us un io n wh ic h h adbe endi srup te d b y th e 2 00 7 a cci de nt . GEICO po in te d o utth atDavi d’s t reat in g p hysic ia ns di d n otag ree o n wh ere i n t he 20 07 sc anth is was d em on st rat ed . GEICO’ s n eu ro su rg eo n e xp erttes ti fie d t he re was a fib ro us un io n i n 2 00 7 b utth atitha d n otbe endi srup te d b y th e acc id en t. An ot he r GEICO ex pe rt, arad io lo gi st , tes ti fie d t ha t t he re was no ev id en ce o f a d is rupt io n o f th e 2 00 3 s ur ge ry . GEICO’ s t hi rdexpe rt, a n o rth op ed is t wh o h adtre at edDavi d i n th e p as t, t es ti fie d t ha t t he 20 03 su rg ery ha d b een su cces sf ul bu t d idno t t es ti fy ab ou t the 20 07 acci de nt . He tes ti fie d t ha t h e h adsee n Dav ida m on th aft er the 20 07 acci de ntan d t ha t Dav iddi d n ottel l h im ab ou t i t. Furth er, h e te st ifi edth at Dav id ’s con di ti on was p ers is te ntan d re m ai ne d u nc ha ng edsi nc e 2 00 4. GEICO no te d t ha t Dav id ’s 20 04 ap pl ic at io n fo r di sabi li ty ben efi ts cla im ed pa in in hi s l owe r ba ckan d n eckacco m pa ni edby dep res si on an d t ha t h e was un ab le to do y ardwork o r ho us ewo rk . Davi d t es ti fie d t ha t t he 20 03 su rg ery ha d re so lv ed m os t o f th e p ai n b utth at , aft er the 20 07 acci de nt , he h as ha d c on ti nu ou s p ai n i n t he ba ckof h is ne ck . GEICO di sp ut edDavi d’s t es ti m on y an d s ho wedsu rv ei ll an ce vi de o o f Dav idch an gi ng a bi cy cl e ti re, ri di ng a m ot or cy cl e, op erat in g h is tru ck , an d fi ll in g aga s ca n a t a g as st at io n. The fir stev id en ti ary is su e aro se when GEICO cal le d t he off ic er wh o h ad 4in ve st ig at edth e 2 00 7 a cci de nt . GEICO ask edth e o ffi cer abo uthe r ob se rv at io ns at

th e acc id en t s cen e as well as wh ethe r an y on e h adrep orte d a ny inju rie s. Th e o ffi cer rep orte d t ha t s he ne it he r sa w any inju rie s n orwere an y rep orte d t o h er. Sh e d id adm itth atsh e d idno t kno w if an y on e h adso ug htm ed ic al care aft er l eav in g t he sc en e. The d is tri ctco urt h adgra nt edth e Ang el uc ci s’ pre -tr ia l m ot io n i n l im in e to ex cl ud e an y

st at em en ts to th e in ve st ig at in g o ffi cer a t the acci de ntsce ne . Befo re th e ex am in at io n o f th e o ffi cer b eg an , GEICO hadso ug htlea ve to askth es e qu es ti on s an d t he di st ric t co urt h adpe rm it te d the m ov er o bjec ti on . At cl os in g arg um en t, co un se l fo r GEICO rei te rat edan d e m ph as iz edth atth e o ffi cer t es ti fie d th atDavi d h adno t co m

pl ai ne d o f anin

jury. Inth e se co ndin st an ce, co un se l fo r GEICO as ke d Dav idif t he tru ckin th e su rv ei ll an ce v id eo was n ew, whet he r he own edth e truc k, an d wh ethe r he own ed th e m ot or cy cl e. Then co un se l as ke d i f th e Ang el uc ci s o wne d a ny rent al pro pe rti es in Nort h C aro li na , to whi chDavi d a ns weredy es . The An ge lu cci s m ov edfora m is tri al on th e g ro un d t ha t t he qu es ti on vi ol at edth e p art ie s’ pre -tr ia l ag reem en t n ot to in qu ire ab ou t t he Ang el uc ci s’ real est at e h ol di ng s an d p rio r se tt le m en ts . GEICO arg ue d s uc ces sf

ul ly tha t t he Ang el uc ci s h adop en edth e d oo r to th e que st io n wi th th ei r te st im on y

th atim pl ie d the y were p oo r; GEIC O arg ue d t ha t t he qu es ti on was in te nd edto ad dr es s ea rli er t es ti m on y by K athl eenth atth ey

ha d m ov edfro m 5Co nn ect ic utbe cau se itwas t oo ex pe ns iv e. The co urt d en ie d t he Ang el uc ci s’

m ot io n b ecau se itrul edth ey ha d o pe ne d t he do orto su ch qu es ti on s, t he pre -tr ia l ru li ng an d a gr eem en t co ul d n otactas ash ie ldwhenth ey pu rs ue d t ho se li ne s o f qu es ti on in g, an d t he tes ti m on y eli ci te d b y

GEICO di d n otad dr es s t he subjec t o f pr io r se tt le m en ts or p inpo in t t he so ur ce o f th e m on ey as c om in g fr om

th os e se tt le m en ts . The An ge lu cci s at te m pt edto m it ig at e th e ev id en ce b y cal li ng Mrs . Ang el uc ci ba ckto th e st an d, wh ere s he tes ti fie d t ha t t he pro pe rti es were p ur ch as ed wit h t he pro ceed s o f th e sa le of t he ir h ou se inCo nn ect ic utan d e arn ed$6 5 a nd $1 60 a m on th . Afte r th e jury retu rn eda ve rd ic t fo r GEICO, th e Ang el uc ci s m ov edfor a ne w tri al . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n, re as on in g t ha t t he off ic er’s s ta te m en ts reg ard in g h er kno wled ge of i nju rie s atth e sc en e o f th e acc id en t d idno t v io la te th e acci de ntrep ort p riv il eg e. Fu rth er, the qu es ti on s ab ou t the Ang el uc ci s’ ren ta l pr op ert ie s d idno t warran t a n ew tr ia l b ecau se th e Ang el uc ci s o pe ne d t he do orto qu es ti on s ab ou t t he ir f

in an ces an d wer e ab le to reb utth e te st im on y . Fin al ly, th e co urt s ta te d t ha t “ th e v erd ic t re tu rn edby the jury was supp orte d b y th e cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce t ha t was adm it te d dur in g t ria l.”

I. DISCUSS ION 6A. GEICO’s qu es ti on s t o t he po li ce o ffi cer abo utst at em en ts m ad e to he r

App el la nt s p oi ntto Fla . Sta t. § 31 6.0 66 (5 ), whi ch pre ve nt s the us e o f an acci de ntrep ort an d s ta te m en ts m ad e fo r th e p ur po se of c reat in g a n a cci de ntrep ort. The st atut e st at es , inpe rti ne ntpa rt: Exc ep t as sp eci fie d i n thi s s ub se ct io n, ea ch cras h re po rt m ad e b y a pe rs onin vo lv edin a cras h a ndan y st at em en t m ad e b y

su ch pe rs onto a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer f

orth e p ur po se of c om

pl et in g acras h re po rt requi redby thi s s ect io n s ha ll be witho utpre jud ic e to th e in di vi du al so rep orti ng . No s uc h re po rt o r st at em en t s ha ll be us edas e vi de nc e in an y tri al , civ il or c riminal . . . . Fl or id a St atut e § 31 6.0 66 (5 ) (2 01 0) . “ The pu rp os e o f th e st atut e is to clo th e wit h st atut ory imm un it y th e st at em en ts an d c omm un ic at io ns th ata dr iv er, o wne r, or oc cupantof ave hi cl e is co m pe ll edto m ak e in co m

pl ia nc e wit h t he st atut ory du ty un de r se ct io n 3 16 .06 6( 1) an d (2 ).” Whi te v. Co ns ol . Frei gh tways Co rp ., 76 6 S o. 2d12 28 , 12 32 (Fl a. 1s t DCA 2 00 0) . The Ang el uc ci s ar gu e th e cas e o f Tho m as v. Go tt li eb , 52 0 S o. 2 d 6 22 (Fl a. 4t h DCA 1 98 8) , is an al og ou s t o t he ir c as e. Ther e, th e p art ie s co nt es te d wh ethe r Tho m as su ffer edth e in

jury to h is kn ee atth e acc id en t o r in an ot he r in ci de nt . Id. at 62 2. Bo th si de s p uton witne ss es supp orti ng th ei r po si ti on s an d t he Got tl ie bs cal le d t he in ve st ig at in g o ffi cer. Id . The o ffi cer d idno t re cal l t he acci de ntso he te st ifi edba se d o n the acci de ntrep ort. Id . at 6 22 -2 3. Whil e th e rev ie win g c ou rt

7he ldth atqu es ti on s ab ou t t he off ic er’s o bs erv at io ns were p erm is si bl e, th e Got tl ie bs fel l af ou l o f th e acc id en t re po rt p riv il eg e b y ask in g que st io ns ab ou t wh ethe r an y on e co m

pl ai ne d o f anin

jury. Id . at 6 23 . This , th e co urt h el d, fe ll squarel y wit hi n t he pri vi le ge . Id. Itdi d n otm at te r th atth e que st io ns rel at edto what Tho m as di d n otsay. Id. Tho m as ha d a ffi rm at iv el y tes ti fie d t ha t h e h adrep orte d th e in jury to t he off

ic er. The co urt n ot edth atth e que st io ns to th e o ffi cer abo utth e st at em en ts to uc he d o n b ot h t he factof t he in jury andth e cre di bi li ty of Tho m as an d co nc lu de d t ha t “ [t]he st atut ory pri vi le ge ap pl ie s t o t he us e o f th e st at em en ts for im pe ach m en t as well as f

orsubs ta nt iv e ev id en ce.” Id . The co urt co nc lu de d t ha t th e jury m

us t h av e d et erm in edth atTho m as di d n otsu fferhi s i nju ry du rin g t he acci de ntat i ss ue an d, g iv enth e co nf li ct in g t es ti m on y , th e ad m is si on of t he of fic er’s s ta te m en t was ha rm fu l. Id . W e co nc lu de th atTho m as is co ntro ll in g a nd m an da te s o urho ld in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt co m m it te d e rro r in pe rm it ti ng GEICO to askth e p ol ic e o ffi cer abo utrep orts of i nju rie s atth e sc en e. As i n Th om as , th e of fic er’s t es ti m on y

th atno in juri es were re po rte d t o h er fa ll s s qu arel y withi n t he pr iv il eg e. Als o a s i n Th om as , th e o ffi cer’s t es ti m on y he re t ou ch edbo thon th e fac t an d s eri ou sn es s o f th e in

jury, an d o n Dav idAng el uc ci ’s cred ib il it y . Hav in g c on cl ud edth atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d e rro r, we ne xtex am in e whe th er the erro r is rev ers ib le erro r. Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws ru li ng s o n t he 8adm is si bi li ty of ev id en ce fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n a ndwil l n otov erturn a n

ev id en ti ary ru li ng un le ss th e m ov in g p art y est ab li sh es a subs tant ia l p reju di ci al effe ct . Gol ds m it h v . Bag by Eleva to r Co ., 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 76 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). Bec au se we rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n, the Ang el uc ci s m us t s ho w th atth ere was subs ta nt ia l p reju di ci al effe ct . 1 Fo r se ve ral reas on s, we co nc lu de th atth e Ang el uc ci s h av e es tabl is he d subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce. Fi rs t, Fl or id a co urts ha ve ob se rv edth atjuri es acco rdsp eci al weig htto th e te st im on y

of apo li ce o ffi cer. Whit e, 76 6 S o. 2 d a t 1 23 3 (c it in g Alb ert so n v . Sta rk , 29 4 S o. 2 d 6 98 , 69 9 (F la . 4t h DCA 1 97 4) ). The o ffi cer’s te st im on y bo ls te redGEICO’s arg um en t t o t he jury th atDavi d An ge lu cci was ex ag ge rat in g. Se co nd , GEICO em ph as iz edth is si gn ifi can t ev id en ce i n i ts clo si ng arg um en t t o t he jury, si gn ifyin g t he im po rtanc e GEICO it se lf p la cedup on th e of fic er’s t es ti m on y . GEICO’ s co un se l ar gu edin clo si ng : “ Offi cer F en de r . . . co nf irmed th ere wer e n o c om

pl ai nt s o f in

jury at th e sc en e. Andth at ’s im po rta nt

GEI CO is corre ct that the pre judice ana ly sis is di ffe rent in this case than it was in 1 Thomas. In Thomas, the question wa s an absolute “ Did the injury happen at the acc ident? ” so the offic er’ s observations and any repor ts about an ac cident we re vital, e specia lly g iven the conflictingtestimony

from the two sides. He re, the question is “how serious wa s the injury ? ” The obser vations and re ports are helpful but not cruc ial to the question beca use it is conceiva

ble that David could have suff ere d a significant injury

at the ac cident without the offic er know ing. Howeve r, an obse rvation or r eport that ther e wa s an injury would add strength to the Plainti ffs’ testimony that it was signif

icant. Similarly , the fa ilure of the pa rties to repor

t an injury , althoug h not cruc ial, would add strength to GEI CO’s position that the injury was not ser ious. 9be cau se Mr. An ge lu cci di dn ’t say or te ll th e o ffi cer I ’m hu rt. . . . There were n o co m pl ai nt s. So asky ou rs el f whe th er Mr . Ang el uc ci ’s fam il y are em be ll is hi ng wha t re al ly too k p la ce t he re atth e acc id en t s cen e.” Thi rd , th e Ang el uc ci s wer e am bu sh edby G EICO’s us e o f th e ev id en ce. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d t he Ang el uc ci s’ pre -tr ia l m ot io n i n l im in e ex cl ud in g s ta te m en ts to th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er m ad e b y

th e Ang el uc ci s o r an y

ot he r pe rs on s. Th en , GEICO cal le d t he po li ce o ffi cer a s i ts las t wi tn es s, an d the di st ric t co urt re ve rs edit s ru li ng an d adm it te d t he off

ic er’s t es ti m on y

th atno on e rep orte d a ny inju rie s. Th is seq ue nc e of ev en ts pre

jud ic edth e Ang el uc ci s b ecau se th ei r act io ns co ul d b e in te rp ret ed“by th e jury to b e h id in g c le arl y rel ev an t ev id en ce.” Bo rch eckv. St at e Farm Mu t. Aut o. In s., 7 66 So . 2d48 2, 4 85 (Fl a. 5t h DCA 2 00 0) . Fin al ly, th e m ed ic al ev id en ce o n t he cru ci al is su e – whet he r th e in

jury w as ser io us an d p erm an en t – was in ge nu in e co nf

li ct , enh an ci ng th e si gn ifi can ce o f th is in adm is si bl e ev id en ce an d b ol st eri ng GEICO’s po si ti on th atDavi d An ge lu cci was e xa gg erat in g t he se rio us ne ss of h is in

jury. Inli gh t o f th e fo reg oi ng , we con cl ud e th atth e Ang el uc ci s h av e es tabl is he d a subs ta nt ia l p reju di ci al effe ct . W e co nc lu de th atth is pi ece o f ev id en ce – gi ve n a s itwas b y th e o nl y ap pa ren tl y

un bi as edwitne ss – m ay

well ha ve carr ie d the da y for GEICO. There fo re, we h ol d t ha t i t was pre jud ic ia l t o the Ang el uc ci s, v acat e th e 10jury’ s v erd ic t, an d re m an d fo r a n ew tr ia l.

B. Evi de nc e o f th e Ang el uc ci s’ fin an ci al si tu at io n The Ang el uc ci s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al be cau se of GEIC O’ s que st io ns ab ou t the ir r en ta l p ro pe rti es was rev ers ib le erro r. As n ot edab ov e, th e Ang el uc ci s wer e ab le to reca ll Kath le en , who tes ti fie d t ha t the pro pe rti es were p ur ch as edwith t he pro ceed s o f th e sa le of th ei r res id en ce i n C on ne ct ic utan d g en erat edon ly $65 an d $ 16 0 am on th . Giv en th e b ur de n, d is cu ss edab ov e, of sh owi ng th atth ey

were s ub st an ti al ly prejud ic ed , th e Ang el uc ci s h av e fai le d t o e st ab li sh rev ers ib le erro r in th is reg ard . VACATED andREMANDED.

11