Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

August 04, 2017 | Blog Post| Still Keeping Us Guessing: Florida Supreme Court Poised to Clarify The Daubert Standard in Florida. Maybe.

Is it safe to use the Daubert standard of the new section 90.702, Florida Statutes, to exclude your opponent’s expert testimony?  Do you have a choice?

Earlier this year, the Florida supreme court raised a red flag on the new Florida Statute section 90.702 in In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, SC16-181, 2017 WL 633770 (Fla. Feb. 16, 2017).  In that opinion the supreme court only noted it had “grave concerns” that (unidentified) elements of the new section 90.702 Daubert statute are constitutionally suspect – it gave no substantive ruling on the matter.

The supreme court hinted that its concern was that the new Daubert procedure may impinge on constitutional rights of access to the courts and the right to a jury trial.  This is notable because Daubert has been the standard in federal courts and dozens of state courts for decades without such problems.  The supreme court stated these concerns “must be left for a proper case or controversy.”  

The supreme court was clear that it “does not address the constitutionality of a statue or proposed rule within the context of a procedural rules case,” like this one.  So, since enactment, the Daubert amendment to 90.702 has been the (questioned) law of the land. But that may be about to change.

On July 11, 2017, the supreme court apparently found its “proper case or controversy.”  The case is Richard Delisle v. Crane Co., et al., case SC16-2182.  The initial brief challenging the new law was filed on July 31st.  The Florida Justice Association has sought leave to file an amicus in support.  The briefing process will take the case into the Fall, with oral argument to be set perhaps by the end of this year or early next year. 

What is the upshot on orders “in the pipeline” in other cases that exclude expert testimony on the basis of the new 90.702 Daubert standard?  If the supreme court were to alter the enforceability of the new 90.702, that exclusionary order based on the Daubert standard, and perhaps a verdict rendered after a trial, could be at risk.  Stay tuned, as we will be closely following this issue!

Anthony J. Russo

A Partner at Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP in Tampa, FL. Anthony practices in our Appellate, Extra-Contractual, First-Party Coverage, and Third-Party Coverage departments.

January 07, 2019 Blog PostOfferors relax! Offerees take note! The technical requirements of rule 2.516 do not apply to proposals for settlement

The Florida Supreme Court in Wheaton v. Wheaton, No. SC17-716, 2019 WL 99109 (Fla. Jan.4, 2019), resolved the district split on the issue whether proposals for settlement made pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 must comply with the e-mail service provisions of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516.

Read More »
October 25, 2018 Blog PostFlorida Supreme Court gives green light to insurers to take immediate appeals of rulings that find no settlement reached

Attention liability insurers and their counsel – the Florida Supreme Court has given the green light to immediate appeals of non-final orders that determine the existence and enforceability of settlement agreements.

Read More »
May 21, 2018 Blog PostThis offer expires in 30 days! No automatic extensions says high court

The new rule? The filing of a motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090 to enlarge the time to accept a proposal for settlement does not automatically toll the 30-day deadline for accepting the proposal until the motion is decided.

Read More »
July 26, 2017 Blog PostThe Continuing Saga of Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company: The Second District Court of Appeal Rules on Remand

On July 20, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal issued an order that closed its books on the Sebo appeal.  Mr. Sebo made a homeowner’s claim to American Home contending construction deficiencies had allowed water to enter the residence at multiple points, causing, eventually, a complete destruction of the residence.  The trial court ruled the concurrent cause doctrine applied, and so that the combination of covered water damage and excluded faulty, inadequate and defective construction had resulted in coverage for the loss. 

Read More »
June 26, 2017 Blog PostEXTRAORDINARY WRITS: CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

Extraordinary Writs:  Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.  The ins and outs of appellate relief via an extraordinary writ covered by Carol in depth in this webinar.  

Read More »
May 02, 2017 Blog PostPreserving Error For Appeal in Florida State Courts 2017 Podcast

Carol’s first webinar for the 2017 Appellate Webinar Series covered preserving error for appeal in Florida state courts.  Don’t win the battle and lose the war because of unpreserved error! 

If you missed the webinar, you can catch up on all of the essential information you need to know regarding critical preservation issues downloadable on all devices.

Read More »
April 14, 2017 Blog PostSupreme Court says lawyer's referral of client to a doctor for treatment is attorney-client privileged communication, and out of bounds in discovery

The Florida Supreme Court declared that the attorney-client privilege shielded a motor vehicle accident plaintiff from being required to disclose that her attorney had referred her to a doctor for treatment.

Read More »
April 03, 2017 Blog PostFlorida Supreme Court To Consider Rule Change Allowing Immediate Review Of Orders On Settlement Agreements

The Florida Bar Appellate Rules Committee has proposed to the Florida Supreme Court an amendment to the appellate rules that would allow immediate appeals of orders that determine if, “as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, was set aside, or never existed.” 

Read More »
February 21, 2017 Blog PostSupreme Court speaks on Daubert – says not much

Last week the supreme court issued its opinion on the recommendations of the Florida Bar Rules committee regarding the new Daubert statute. The supreme court noted there are “grave concerns” that (unidentified) elements of the Daubert statute are constitutionally suspect.  But, in the end, Florida’s Daubert statute is still the law of Florida – the Florida statute was not struck down or deemed to be unconstitutional.  Practitioners still must comply with it.

Read More »
January 18, 2017 Blog PostSAFEGUARDING EVERY VETERAN'S BENEFITS: LESSONS FROM BRUCE V. MCDONALD, 2017 WL 57172

On January 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rejected the assertion by the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and the Board of Veterans Appeals (the Board) that a service member who requested a discharge in Lieu of Court Martial after an unauthorized absence of 42 days was barred from seeking veteran’s benefits for an injury he had suffered on active duty.

Read More »
September 28, 2015 Blog PostUnprotected: Florida Appellate Court Holds Protective Safeguard Condition Is Not A Condition Precedent To Coverage

A Florida appellate court recently held that the breach of a protective safeguard condition did not automatically suspend coverage.

Read More »
June 02, 2015 Blog PostThe Florida Supreme Court Endorses Citizens' Immunity

The high court declared that Citizens is shielded from statutory bad-faith suits, and that bad faith is not a “willful tort,” which is a statutory exception to the immunity granted by the Florida Legislature.  The vindication was a long time coming for Citizens.  The Legislature created Citizens with a broad immunity that seemed clearly intended to shield it from bad-faith actions...

Read More »
Key Points
Author Practice Area