Jerry's lowered quality of life and Kimberly's loss of his companionship, that the jury believed that the Earls were entitled to the coverage limit or more in damages. However, in light of the fact that the jury awarded precisely the coverage limit, we cannot say that the jury was unaffected by the evidence of the coverage limit. Therefore, we find that the trial court erred when it allowed the introduction of evidence concerning the bodily injury limit in the Earl's insurance policy. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded for a new trial. VAIDIK, C.J., concurs, and RILEY, J., dissents with opinion. 1 . No evidence of the $2,000,000 umbrella policy was introduced at trial. 2 . See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Dewberry, 383 So.2d 1109 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980) (<HOLDING>); Kvamme v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 267
holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver holding that when insureds counsel repeatedly mentioned um policy limits and the jury awarded the policy limit there was reversible error holding valid an ownedbutunscheduled restriction in a um policy holding that the insureds recovery could not exceed the lability limitations of his policy even though punitive damages were appropriate under the um provision holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage