## Facts

- Clifford Knapp, age 15, worked at an auto-body shop owned by his father, Charles Knapp.
- An airplane owned and operated by Compania Dominicana de Aviacion crashed into the shop, killing Clifford.
- At the time of the crash, Clifford was speaking on the telephone with his mother, Ethyle Knapp.
- Charles Knapp was outside the shop and witnessed the crash.
- Charles sued Compania Dominicana de Aviacion for wrongful death and joined the airline’s liability insurer, Underwriters at Lloyds, London, as a defendant under Florida’s joinder/direct-action practice.
- At trial, the Knapps presented testimony (including from a psychiatrist, the family doctor, and family friends) describing the family’s grief and mental suffering after Clifford’s death, including Ethyle’s depression.
- The jury returned a verdict for Charles Knapp and awarded $1,800,000 in damages for Clifford’s loss of services and for the parents’ pain and suffering.
- The trial court entered final judgment on the verdict and denied the defendants’ post-trial motions, including requests to sever the insurer, declare mistrials based on alleged prejudice, and order a new trial or other relief based on the size of the verdict.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the defendants’ motion to sever (separately try) the claims against Underwriters at Lloyds, London?
2. Did the trial court err by denying a mistrial after a witness made a brief reference indicating Lloyd’s had paid for cleaning vehicles affected by oil from the crash?
3. Did the trial court err by denying a mistrial or new trial based on claimed misconduct by plaintiff’s counsel during trial, including remarks suggesting the pilot failed U.S. competency tests?
4. Was the $1,800,000 wrongful-death verdict so excessive that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial or other relief?

## Decision

- The court affirmed the final judgment.
- The denial of severance was affirmed because severance in this setting is a trial-management decision committed to the trial judge, and no abuse of discretion was shown.
- The denial of a mistrial based on the brief insurance-related reference was affirmed; the objection was sustained, the jury was instructed to disregard the statement, and the incident did not require a mistrial.
- The denial of a mistrial/new trial based on alleged attorney misconduct was affirmed because the trial judge’s on-the-scene assessment supported the conclusion that any impropriety did not create incurable prejudice.
- The denial of a new trial based on excessiveness was affirmed; the court held that a verdict approved by the trial judge will not be disturbed unless it is so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience, and the proof of the family’s loss supported the award.
- Chief Judge Swann dissented, arguing that the testimony about Lloyd’s payment for property-damage cleaning violated the rule against injecting insurance payments into the case and risked prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Whether to sever a joined insurer for a separate trial generally rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; reversal requires a clear abuse of that discretion.
- A reference to insurance or insurance payments does not automatically require a mistrial; the question is whether the reference likely caused material prejudice that could not be cured by sustaining an objection and instructing the jury to disregard it.
- Requests for mistrial based on counsel’s remarks are reviewed with deference to the trial judge, who is best positioned to evaluate the event’s effect on the jury; relief is warranted only for substantial, incurable prejudice.
- A damages verdict approved by the trial judge will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience, indicating that the jury was influenced by improper considerations or that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing a new trial or remittitur.
- Florida’s joinder/direct-action practice permitted the plaintiff to name the liability insurer with the alleged tortfeasor, subject to the trial court’s control of trial procedures to reduce unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Third District affirmed a $1,800,000 wrongful-death judgment for Charles Knapp after a Compania Dominicana de Aviacion aircraft crashed into the Knapp family’s auto-body shop and killed their 15-year-old son, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing to sever the insurer, denying mistrials based on a brief insurance-payment reference and claimed counsel misconduct, and upholding a damages award that did not shock the judicial conscience in light of the evidence of loss and mental suffering.


Compania Dominicana de Aviacion v. Knapp, 251 So. 2d 18 (1971)