Uninsured Versus Underinsured? There is a Big Difference, and the Jury Should Know!

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a jury trial verdict in favor of the plaintiffs/insureds in an underinsured motorist case in which the the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion in limine in order to prevent the jury from hearing the tortfeasor was “underinsured” as opposed to “uninsured.”

In this case, the tortfeasor (who rear-ended Brook Tsao), in fact, had $100,000 in liability insurance that was paid to the plaintiffs in a settlement. The plaintiffs then proceeded against their uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier.

In support of their argument, the plaintiffs claimed, if the tortfeasor was referred to as “underinsured,” it would lead to speculation that there may have been a settlement. In its opposition, GEICO argued the jury should know the tortfeasor had liability insurance, which the plaintiffs contended was less than their total damages. GEICO further argued, to use the term “uninsured” rather than “underinsured” would “create an impermissible charade” and mislead the jury into believing GEICO, while admitting liability, was refusing to acknowledge the plaintiffs were entitled to any recovery at all.

Following Florida precedence, the appellate court explained the importance of the jury being made aware of whether the insurance company, as properly named in the lawsuit, is an “uninsured” or “underinsured” motorist carrier. The court concluded on the issue, “[c]orrectly identifying the tortfeasor as underinsured, rather than merely uninsured, aligns with both the statutory definitions and judicial rulings aimed at ensuring a fair and informed trial process.”