26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 17a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2601SIDEInsurance — Property — Sinkhole damage — Civil procedure — Bifurcation — Motion to bifurcate trial into two parts addressing issues of whether structural damage existed and whether damage was caused by sinkhole activity excluded from coverage denied — Many of same witnesses will testify as to both issues, and insurer has failed to show that it will be prejudiced by trying issues together or that bifurcation would serve interests of judicial economy
CHARLES SIDELL and BETH SIDELL, Plaintiffs, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. Circuit Court, 5th Judicial Circuit in and for Hernando County. Case No. 2017-CA-895. February 22, 2018. Donald E. Scaglione, Judge. Counsel: F. Todd Frederick, The Bush Law Group, LLC, Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. Erin R. Kreisler, The Rock Law Group, P.A., Maitland, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR BIFURCATED TRIAL
THIS CAUSE comes before this Court on Defendant’s Motion for Bifurcated Trial, and the Court, having reviewed the Motion, the Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition, the file, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds the following:
1. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l .270(b) provides:
Separate Trials. The court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any claim, crossclaim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues.
2. In deciding whether to order separate trials, great discretion is vested in the trial court. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion v. Knapp, 251 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Bifurcation of issues and separate trials “should not be ordered unless such disposition is clearly necessary, and then only in the furtherance of justice.” Stanley v. Delta Connection Acad., Inc., 12 So. 3d 781, 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D878a] (citing Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So. 2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D1279b]) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Vander Car v. Pitts, 166 So. 2d 837, 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (“[A] single trial generally tends to lessen the delay, expense and inconvenience to all concerned, and the courts have emphasized that separate trial should not be ordered unless such disposition is clearly necessary . . . .”). Indeed, due to the high risk of inconsistent verdicts, bifurcation of claims is to be avoided. Bethany Evangelical Covenant Church of Miami v. Calandra, 994 So. 2d 478, 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D2600d]. Bifurcation is the exception, not the rule. Brodfuehrer v. Estate of Brodfuehrer, 833 So. 2d 784, 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D577a].
3. The Court finds that the issues of structural damage, coverage, method of repair, and damages are inextricably intertwined, as many of the same witnesses will testify as to these various issues. See, e.g., Rooss v. Mayberry, 866 So. 2d 174, 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D577a] (holding that a unified trial, rather than bifurcated action as to liability and damages issues, was required to affect substantial justice in medical malpractice action brought by a German national); Yost v. Am. Nat’l Bank, 570 So. 2d 350, 352-53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (concluding that in an action brought by lender to foreclose promissory note, defendants’ compulsory counterclaims were improperly severed for separate trial); Travelers Express, Inc. v. Acosta, 397 So. 2d 733, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (noting that a severance for separate trial is within the discretion of the trial court, but that separate trials are appropriate only when a joint trial may prejudice a party or cause inconvenience).
4. Additionally, the Defendant has failed to show that it will be prejudiced by trying the issues together or that bifurcation would serve the interests of judicial economy. “It is in the interest of all litigants and the courts in cases where a dispute over a contract exists that all elements of that dispute be tried and resolved at one time.” City of Mascotte v. Florida Mun. Liability Self Insurers Program, 444 So. 2d 965, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
5. Therefore, the Court does not find it necessary to bifurcate the trial into two parts: (1) whether structural damage exists; and if so, then (2) whether structural damage was excluded from coverage (i.e., whether sinkhole activity caused structural damage). The Court has presided over many sinkhole cases where both questions were considered in one linear trial, without incurring any undue prejudice that the Court believes would amount to reversible error.
BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Bifurcated Trial is hereby DENIED.
