Case Name: Mitchell NICAISE, Appellant, v. Don Joseph A. GAGNON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-02-05
Citations: 597 So. 2d 305
Docket Number: No. 90-3324
Parties: Mitchell NICAISE, Appellant, v. Don Joseph A. GAGNON, Appellee.
Judges: WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 597
Pages: 305–308

Head Matter:
Mitchell NICAISE, Appellant, v. Don Joseph A. GAGNON, Appellee.
No. 90-3324.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 5, 1992.
On Motion for Rehearing April 15, 1992.
Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Klein & Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Joel D. Ken-wood of Woods, Oviatt, Gilman, Sturman & Clarke, Boca Raton, for appellant.
Michael B. Davis of Davis Colbath Isaacs & Stinson, P.A., formerly known as Davis Carroll Colbath & Isaacs, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
LETTS, Judge.
During closing argument, plaintiffs counsel instructed the jury "not to worry whether the defendant will contribute a dime of money." Upon the premise that these remarks were an impermissible reference to insurance, the defense immediately moved for a mistrial and the trial judge deferred ruling on it. After a favorable verdict, the trial court entered final judgment for the plaintiff; but at a post-trial hearing, the trial court granted a renewed motion for a mistrial ordering a new trial on both liability and damages. We affirm.
The plaintiff was injured on the job by a falling roof tile and filed suit against the president/co-owner of his corporate employer, individually. The jury verdict in his favor was for $220,000, which the judge initially reduced to $161,000 before ordering the new trial.
Neither party has cited nor have we found a Florida case involving the implicit reference to the existence of insurance coverage but not actually mentioning the word. As the employer correctly points out, it is clear in Florida that the introduction of the subject of insurance in an action where insurance is not a proper issue constitutes prejudicial error. This is particularly true when the suggestion relates to whether an adverse judgment will be paid by the defendant or its insurer. See Carlton v. Johns, 194 So.2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Pierce v. Smith, 301 So.2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So.2d 193 (Fla.1975). However, in those cases, the word insurance was expressly mentioned.
The employee points out that use of the word insurance does not always constitute prejudicial error. See Crowell v. Fink, 167 So.2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Industrial Waste Service v. Henderson, 305 So.2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (wherein it was held that the trial court had not erred by denying the defendant's motion for a new trial on the ground that plaintiff's counsel referred to defense counsel as the "insurance company's lawyer"); Metropolitan Dade County v. Dillon, 305 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 317 So.2d 442 (Fla.1975); Sayad v. Alley, 508 So.2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1987) (wherein it was held the trial court had not erred by denying the defendant's motion for a new trial on the ground that plaintiff's counsel made two passing references to insurance during trial). The mention of the word insurance in those cases, however, was not related to who would be paying. Moreover, not one of those cases reviewed an order granting a new trial.
Admittedly, it would appear that the statement to the jury that they were "not to worry whether the defendant [would] contribute a dime of money" was innocuous and had we been the trial judge we doubt we would have granted the new trial. However, the standard of appellate review of an order granting a new trial is well settled. The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether to grant a new trial and its decision to do so will not be reversed on appeal, absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. McDonald Construction Co. v. Seaboard Coast Line, 375 So.2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1198 (Fla.1980). The employer was the only defendant in this case which makes the objected to phrase, and particularly the word "contribute," all the more susceptible to the construction adopted by the court below. In that re spect, we reproduce the applicable portion of the trial judge's order:
The comments by the Plaintiffs attorney which form the basis of the Defendant's motion are as follows:
You are not to speculate on any of the evidence. You are not worry whether Mitch Nicaise may or may not see a dime of money. You are not to worry whether the defendant will contribute a dime of money.
Defendant immediately moved for a mistrial, arguing that Plaintiff's comments were no more than a thinly veiled and impermissible reference to insurance. The Court agrees.
It matters not in the context of this case, that Plaintiff's counsel never actually uttered the word "insurance." By telling the jury that it need not concern itself whether the Defendant Gagnon will satisfy the judgment out of his own pocket, Plaintiff's counsel planted in the minds of the jurors the seed of insurance just as surely as if he had mentioned it directly-
Were this a case of clear liability, then perhaps the error could be passed off as harmless. Here the issue of liability was extremely close. So close in fact, that there is a question as to whether there was sufficient evidence for the case to even have gone to the jury. Given that the evidence on the issue of liability was so close, the Court finds that the argument of Nicaise's attorney suggesting the existence of available insurance to satisfy any judgment was far from harmless and requires a new trial on both liability and damages. See, Skislak v. Wilson, 472 So.2d 776 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985).
We conclude that the trial judge's ruling was within his broad discretion and was not an abuse thereof.
AFFIRMED.
WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
. No curative instruction was requested.