Joe CapozziBut Joseph Viera plans to appeal the 4th DCA opinion that the city never breached its agreement to provide health benefits.
Lake Worth Beach taxpayers avoided a $9.9 million bill Wednesday when an appellate court overturned a 2023 jury verdict in a former city police officer’s decades-long insurance fight against the city.
Joseph Viera accused Lake Worth Beach of cheating him out of benefits he said he deserved after being seriously injured while chasing a suspect in May 2000.
A jury ruled in his favor in August 2023 and awarded him $7.1 million, an amount that has climbed with prejudgment interest to $9.9 million. Lake Worth Beach appealed.
The city has no insurance to cover the cost of the verdict, meaning taxpayers would have been on the hook for the award, which is about 18% of the city’s $53.6 million proposed general fund budget.
On July 22, the 4th District Court of Appeal reversed that verdict, ruling “the trial court erred” by sending the case to a jury and “failing to grant summary judgment in favor of the city.”
“We are grateful that justice prevailed,” City Attorney Glen Torcivia said in an interview.
“The court agreed that the city always fulfilled its obligations of the agreement,” he said. “We agreed to provide health insurance and to this day we still provide health insurance for him. We have never breached the agreement.”
Daniel Lustig, Viera’s attorney, said his client will appeal.
“The Vieras are disappointed with the opinion and plan to exhaust the appellate remedies they have,” he said.
Disagreement over injuries
The long and complicated case started 26 years ago, several years before the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office took over the city police department in 2008. While chasing a suspect on foot, Viera hurt his back when he fell off a wall. Seven months later, his cruiser was struck by a car.
“Most of my spine has been fused. I’ve got severe nerve damage,” Viera, who sued the city in 2010, told Stet News after the 2023 verdict. “My spinal cord was damaged, my neck was fractured, both hips, both knees, my shoulder. I’ve got paralysis in areas of my body.”
But city officials didn’t believe he was seriously injured.
During a 2016 court hearing, Torcivia, who was then representing the city in the lawsuit, accused Viera of “milking the system,” as Stet News reported.
“This is not some brave officer who faced down a gunman,” Torcivia said at a hearing. “No, he got hurt in a car accident.”
Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Cheryl Caracuzzo scolded Torcivia for his coarse view of Viera’s claims. But she threw out his lawsuit because the statute of limitations had expired.
Her decision was overturned in 2017 by the 4th District Court of Appeal. It ruled that Lake Worth Beach was obligated to provide Viera health insurance coverage, but left it up to a Circuit Court judge to work out the details.
Although city officials and Viera agreed to settle in 2018, both sides soon fell into a disagreement and went to trial in 2023.
City officials insisted they only agreed to provide Viera, his wife and minor children with medical, dental and vision coverage. Viera insisted that the contract also required the city to provide other insurance products offered to its employees, such as life insurance and accidental death insurance.
Not ‘an easy or clear-cut question’
The jury ruled in favor of Viera. The city appealed, leading to Wednesday’s ruling, which hinged on two questions, according to the opinion: “When is a contract ambiguous? And when does the jury, rather than the judge, get to resolve that ambiguity?”
Both the city and Viera maintained that the settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous, according to the opinion, written by Judge Johnathan Lott and affirmed by Judges Mark Klingensmith and Caroline Shepherd.
Both sides filed competing motions for summary judgment asking the court to construe the agreement as a matter of law.
“Accordingly, there were no facts for the jury to decide. The court should have interpreted the contract as a matter of law to determine what benefits the contract required the city to provide,” the judges wrote.
“The plain language of the contract provides that the city’s obligation was to provide medical, dental, and vision insurance, and not the supplemental insurance benefits the Vieras’ claim,” according to the opinion.
The trial court erred by denying the city’s motion for summary judgment and submitting to the jury the question of whether the city breached the contract by failing to pay supplemental benefits.
“Because there was no material dispute that the city provided the benefits it was required to provide, and thus did not breach the contract, summary judgment should have been entered in its favor.”
Toward the end of their 17-page opinion, the judges acknowledged the complexity of the case.
“We do not mean to suggest that this is an easy or clear-cut question. The contractual language is, in the ordinary meaning of the word, ‘ambiguous’ as to whether the city must pay supplemental benefits,” they wrote.
“Both sides made good-faith arguments concerning how the contract ought to be interpreted on this question. But there was no material factual dispute for the jury to resolve on the contract’s meaning,” the opinion said.
“The disagreement was over the legal effect of the agreement’s text and structure. That question belonged to the court.”
This story originally appeared on July 25 in the Lake Worth Beach Independent and is republished here with permission.
