Cases from cite.case.law:

N. POGUE, v. GARIB,, 254 So. 3d 503 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2017), provides that "a trial court may grant additur if the court . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043 . . .

NIEVES v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 248 So. 3d 240 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Subsequently, State Farm rejected the remittitur and, pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes, . . . Section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2017), provides, in pertinent part: In any action for the recovery . . .

SUKRAJ, v. PHOEUNG, 241 So. 3d 911 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Stassinopoulos, 731 So.2d 708, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ) ); see also § 768.043(2), Fla. . . .

HITCHCOCK, v. MAHAFFEY,, 243 So. 3d 459 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . We remand for the trial court to either enter a remittitur under section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2013 . . .

GUSTAVSSON, v. HOLDER, 236 So. 3d 476 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . new trial based on inadequate non-economic damages awarded in a motor vehicle accident case, section 768.043 . . . either an additur award or a new trial on past non-economic damages only in accordance with section 768.043 . . .

J. VICKERS, v. D. THOMAS,, 237 So. 3d 412 (Fla. App. Ct. 2017)

. . . loss of earning capacity and remand for the trial court either to enter a remittitur under section 768.043 . . .

J. RASINSKI, v. P. MCCOY,, 227 So. 3d 201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . The applicable law on remittitur is found in section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2013), which provides . . . Pursuant to section 768.043(1), “only when' the parties agree with the trial court’s amount of remittitur . . . See § 768.043(1), Fla. Stat.; Truelove v. Blount, 954 So.2d 1284, 1289-90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). . . .

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. L. BREWER J. v. L. J., 191 So. 3d 508 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See Smith, 471 So.2d at 170; see also § 768.043(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

EMMONS, v. AKERS, II, 187 So. 3d 900 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2014), requires a trial court, upon motion, to grant an additur if . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043 . . . agree to the additur, the court must order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only. §' 768.043 . . . While section. 768.043 relates only to actions ' for damages arising out of the operation of a motor . . . Case law construing section 768.74 applies equally to cases involving section 768.043. . . .

ORTEGA, v. BELONY,, 185 So. 3d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Belony moved for additur pursuant to section 768.043 of the 'Florida Statutes. . . .

FERRER, v. La SERNA,, 179 So. 3d 523 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes, a trial court may grant additur if the court, determines . . . supported-by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043 . . .

M. WITHERELL M. v. LARIMER,, 152 So. 3d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . court found the jury’s award of $0 and then $1 for past noneconomic damages inadequate under section 768.043 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. WEBB,, 130 So. 3d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Mora, 940 So.2d 1105 (Fla.2006), in which the court considered identical language in section 768.043, . . . Compare § 768.043(1), Fla. . . .

FESTIVAL FUN PARKS, LLC, d b a v. BELLAMY,, 123 So. 3d 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Section 768.043(2), Florida Statutes (2011), requires a trial court to consider the following when determining . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043 . . . See § 768.043(2), Fla. . . .

D. PUGLIESE v. TEREK,, 117 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . The order granting a new trial was unsupported by any fact or law as required by section 768.043(2)(a . . .

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. DeGRANDCHAMP,, 102 So. 3d 685 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 768.043(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . appears that the “trier of fact ... arrived at the amount of damages by speculation or conjecture.” § 768.043 . . . does not “bear [ ] a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered.” § 768.043 . . . the evidence and is [not] such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.” § 768.043 . . .

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. LORENZO,, 49 So. 3d 272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 768.043, Florida Statutes, requires a trial court to review a jury’s award of damages in personal . . . additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only. § 768.043 . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043 . . . was excessive given the jury’s finding of no permanent injury under the factors outlined in section 768.043 . . .

E. MONTESINOS v. ZAPATA,, 43 So. 3d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See also § 768.043(2)(e), Fla. . . .

PRUITT, a v. PEREZ- GERVERT,, 41 So. 3d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 768.043(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

OLIVAS v. PETERSON,, 969 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: “If the court finds that the amount . . . So.2d 1105, 1109 (Fla.2006), our supreme court held that “a ‘party adversely affected’ under section 768.043 . . . See Mora; § 768.043, Fla. Stat. . . .

ELLENDER, v. M. BRICKER,, 967 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Ellender’s claim that the jury’s verdict was inadequate is governed by section 768.043, which provides . . . There are at least three criteria under section 768.043 that indicate that the jury verdict for past . . . See § 768.043(2)(b). . . . See § 768.043(2)(d). . . . See § 768.043(2)(e). . . .

TRUELOVE, d b a L. v. BLOUNT, 954 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . The appellants filed a motion for remitti-tur pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2003), asking . . . Under section 768.043, the trial court should have granted the motion for remittitur. . . . .” § 768.043(2)(c). . . . .” § 768.043(2)(d). . . . .” § 768.043(2)(e). IV. . . .

MORENO v. DIAZ, 943 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2001), similarly authorizes remittitur in actions arising from the . . .

A. MOORE, v. M. PERRY,, 944 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Perry filed a motion for additur pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2005), pointing out that . . . The older statute, section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2005), was adopted in 1977, and addresses remittitur . . . Section 768.043 provides generally that in cases arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, when . . . In determining whether an award is clearly inadequate a trial court is required by section 768.043(2) . . .

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. v. MORA,, 940 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2006)

. . . The trial court based the additur on section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2004), which provides: In . . . grant trial judges the authority to impose additur without the plaintiffs consent and that section 768.043 . . . Prior to the Legislature’s adoption of sections 768.043 and 768.74, we had not recognized a trial court . . . Shortly after the adoption of section 768.043, we decided Adams v. . . . In our decision, we first held that section 768.043 was remedial in nature, granting authority to the . . .

MANHEIM AUCTIONS GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. a d b a a v. MEJIA,, 930 So. 2d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . thoroughly considered order granting an additur for the plaintiffs’ non-economic damages pursuant to section 768.043 . . .

MORA v. WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., 911 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Additur and remittitur in cases involving motor vehicles are governed by section 768.043, Florida Statutes . . . additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only. § 768.043 . . . Second, and most importantly, the court in Brant concluded that section 768.043(1) itself is most reasonably . . . the case of an additur, a plaintiff can be a “party adversely affected” within the meaning of section 768.043 . . .

J. GALAMAGA, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 892 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . He then alternatively moved for an additur or new trial pursuant to sections 768.043(1) and 768.74, Florida . . .

W. BRANT, v. DOLLAR RENT A CAR SYSTEMS, INC., 869 So. 2d 767 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . The outcome in this case is controlled by section 768.043(1) and the supreme court decision in ITT Hartford . . . The trial judge and defense counsel appear to have read section 768.043(1) to authorize trial judges . . . To be sure, even if section 768.043(1) did not expressly provide that the adverse party must consent . . . In any event, section 768.043(1) expressly provides that the adverse party need not accept the amount . . . of the additur and may instead insist on a new trial on damages. § 768.043(1), Fla. . . .

ORTLIEB, v. BUTTS,, 849 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Pursuant to section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2001), upon motion for additur, a trial court may review . . .

McCOWN, v. ESTATE OF E. SEIDELL,, 831 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes (2000) provides: “If the party adversely affected by such remittitur . . . CAUSE REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES PURSUANT TO § 768.043(1), FLA. STAT. (2000). . . .

ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST, v. OWENS A., 816 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2002)

. . . .” § 768.043(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . first authorized additurs in motor vehicle cases in 1977, see Ch. 77-468, § 41, Laws of Fla., and § 768.043 . . . The trial court subsequently denied the petitioner’s motion for new trial under section 768.043, Florida . . . Here, the Third District’s determination that section 768.043 does not require a defendant to be given . . . In Adams, this Court, in determining that section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), was constitutional . . . , said: We therefore hold that section '768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), is a remedial statute designed . . . Section 768.043 in no way alters or conflicts with Rule 1.530. . . .

WAXMAN, v. TRUMAN,, 792 So. 2d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Sections 768.043(1) and 768.74(2), Florida Statutes (1991), regarding additur and remittitur, provide . . . that a trial court must order an additur or remittitur prior to ordering a new trial. §§ 768.043(1), . . .

ALAQUA LAKES REALTY, INC. v. E. BURCH,, 790 So. 2d 604 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Owens, 760 So.2d 210, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (intent of section 768.043 is that where the problem leading . . .

BEAUVAIS, v. EDELL,, 760 So. 2d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Instead it was a motion for an additur expressly made pursuant to sections 768.043 and 768.74. . . . first authorized ad-diturs in motor vehicle cases in 1977, see Ch. 77-468, § 41, Laws of Fla., and § 768.043 . . . Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1993), is the controlling and applicable statute authorizing the trial . . . finding the amount of damages .awarded by the jury is clearly inadequate [followed by text of section 768.043 . . . We note that if sections 768.043 and 768.74 were in conflict section 768.043 would control. . . .

ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST, v. OWENS A., 760 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 768.043(1) details a clear and simple procedure in remittitur and additur actions arising out . . . additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only.” § 768.043 . . . See § 768.043(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); Jarvis v. . . . Judge Hazouri noted that the language of Section 768.043(1) is virtually identical to Section 768.74, . . . See § 768.043, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . See § 768.043, Fla. Stat (1997). . . . additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only.” § 768.043 . . . As already stated, the statute- calls for a new trial “on the issue of damages only.” § 768.043(1), Fla . . .

JARVIS v. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS HOSPITAL, INC. d b a, 743 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Prior to the enactment of section 768.74, the legislature enacted section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes . . . The First District Court of Appeal addressed the application of section 768.043 in City of Jacksonville . . . However, in this case this question is controlled by § 768.043, Fla. Stat. . . . Therefore, just as the first district held that 768.043 is mandatory, I would hold that 768.74 is mandatory . . .

ASTIGARRAGA, v. V. GREEN,, 712 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . than ordering a new trial, .the judge was required to first order a remittitur pursuant to section 768.043 . . . As to the future medical expenses, we direct the trial court to follow the requirements of section 768.043 . . .

A. BEYER, v. A. LEONARD,, 711 So. 2d 568 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1993), is the controlling and applicable statute authorizing the trial . . . Section 768.043(1) provides as follows: 768.043 Remittitur and additur actions arising out of operation . . . To construe section 768.043(1) as urged by appellee would be to alter the clear words of that legislative . . .

AIRSTAR, INC. d b a v. GUBBINS,, 668 So. 2d 311 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . When a trial court awards an additur in accordance with section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1993), the . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043 . . .

AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. JACKSON,, 768 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . on whether the verdict was excessive, the lower court was obligated to look to and follow sections 768.043 . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.043 . . . by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.” § 768.043 . . .

VETERANS AUTO SALES AND LEASING COMPANY, INC. v. POOLE,, 649 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 768.043, enacted in 1977, provides for remittitur and additur in actions arising out of the operation . . . This latter statute tracks nearly all of the language of section 768.043. . . . Section 768.043 allows alteration of awards which the trial court finds to be “clearly excessive or inadequate . . .

SEMINOLE GULF RAILWAY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. FASSNACHT, 635 So. 2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . . § 768.043, Fla.Stat. (1989); § 768.74, Fla.Stat. (1989). . 768.81 Comparative fault.— (2) EFFECT OF . . .

GRIEFER B. v. DiPIETRO a k a a k a J. a k a a k a No a k a, 625 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . In construing section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1985), a predecessor statute substantially identical . . .

SALAZAR, v. SANTOS HARRY CO. INC., 614 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . reasonable _ As further support for finding the verdict was excessive, the judge went on to cite section 768.043 . . . On this basis, and again citing section 768.043, the trial judge held that the jury could only have reached . . .

PHILON C. v. R. REID,, 602 So. 2d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . verdict “clearly excessive,” nor did he first order a remit-titur pursuant to the mandate of section 768.043 . . .

SCHULZ, v. REMY, 573 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . on the face of the record that the trial judge should have ordered a remittitur pursuant to section 768.043 . . . affected by the remittitur has the option of demanding a new trial on the issue of damages alone. § 768.043 . . .

A. DeLONG, Y. v. WICKES COMPANY d b a L., 545 So. 2d 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . See § 768.043(1), Fla.Stat. (1987); Adams v. . . . See § 768.043(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). . . . See § 768.043, Fla. Stat. (1987); Adams, 403 So.2d at 391; Baker, 456 So.2d at 1274. . . .

SALAZAR, v. SANTOS HARRY CO. INC., 537 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . On this basis, and again citing section 768.043, the trial judge held that the jury could only have reached . . .

J. BALLARD, v. AMERICAN LAND CRUISERS, INC. a, 537 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . . § 768.043(2), Fla.Stat. (1985); Griffis v. Hill, 230 So.2d 143 (Fla.1969); Steele v. . . . Upon remand, the trial judge is ordered either to grant an additur under section 768.043(1), Florida . . . claim and the defendants have satisfied the judgment for the estate’s claims under § 768.21(6). . § 768.043 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, v. S. BROOKS, 517 So. 2d 82 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Section 768.043, Fla.Stat., relating to re-mittitur and additur in actions arising out of the operation . . .

VEGA, Jr. v. STABINSKI FUNT, P. A., 510 So. 2d 346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Florida generally does not recognize additurs, except as provided in sections 768.043 and 768.49, Florida . . . fee sharing agreement. . 40 percent of the $22,500 fee that Vega received from the Hervas case. . § 768.043 . . .

DAVIS, v. E. O DELL, B. O, 506 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . In ordering the additur or new trial the trial court expressly relied upon section 768.043, Florida Statutes . . .

JOHN SESSA BULLDOZING, INC. v. PAPADOPOULOS,, 485 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . An exception to this rule was established in 1977 with the passage of sections 768.043 and 768.49, Florida . . . Section 768.043 deals with remittitur and addi-tur actions arising out of operation of motor vehicles . . . Section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1983), states: 768.043. . . .

H. SMITH, v. TELOPHASE NATIONAL CREMATION SOCIETY, INC. d b a, 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . that we are not concerned here with a remittitur (or addi-tur) as is provided for in either section 768.043 . . . Since Florida generally does not recognize additurs, except as provided in sections 768.043 and 768.49 . . .

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, v. G. BAKER,, 456 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . granting a new trial as to damages, the trial judge expressly considered each of the criteria set out in § 768.043 . . . Section 768.043, Fla.Stat. authorizes trial courts to order a remittitur or additur in automobile accident . . . However, in this case this question is controlled by § 768.043, Fla. Stat. . . .

ST. PIERRE, v. PUBLIC GAS COMPANY, a, 423 So. 2d 949 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . See § 768.043, Fla.Stat. (1977). . . .

ADAMS, v. F. WRIGHT, Jr., 403 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1981)

. . . This is a direct appeal from the Circuit Court of Volusia County which held that section 768.043, Florida . . . defendant would not agree to the additur so the trial judge ordered a new trial pursuant to section 768.043 . . . We therefore turn to the main issue in this case, whether section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1977), is . . . Section 768.043 prescribes a remedy whereby a trial judge is empowered to modify a verdict in a motor . . . Section 768.043 in no way alters or conflicts with Rule 1.530. . . . the legislature has unconstitutionally usurped the rule-making powers of this Court, and that section 768.043 . . .

CONNELL, a v. DuBOSE, Sr. AMF, s Co., 403 So. 2d 436 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . The accident occurred prior to July 1, 1977, so that section 768.043, Florida Statutes (1979), is not . . .

SALKAY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. Co. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. Co. v. SALKAY, 398 So. 2d 916 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . This cause of action predates Section 768.043, Florida Statutes, (1977). . . .