CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
v.
CLARA NOA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed a trial court decision regarding expert witness testimony and jury instructions. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling, relying on established standards for reviewing Daubert admissibility decisions and jury instruction issues.
The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony that applied a standard, reliable roof inspection method, and that invited error doctrine precluded any challenge to jury instructions where a party affirmatively agreed to their use.
[1] A trial court's decision on the admissibility of expert testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] Discrepancies between an expert's affidavit and deposition testimony may be grounds for cross-examination but not necessarily for striking the testimony under Daubert.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[W]e conclude that Salleh's testimony, while unclear, was not contradictory . . . any discrepancies between Salleh's affidavit and his deposition may provide fertile ground for cross-examination but should not serve as the basis for his being stricken under Daubert . . . Salleh applied a similar roof-inspection methodology to that of Citizens's inspectors . . . Both sets of inspectors, therefore, applied a standard, reliable roof inspection method that serves to assist the trier of fact.”
Establishes that minor inconsistencies in expert testimony do not warrant exclusion under Daubert when the expert uses a standard, reliable methodology
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a property insurance dispute where expert testimony was presented regarding roof inspection methodology. The trial court admitted ex…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Invited Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1348 Lower Tribunal No. 2019-25696-CA 01 ________________
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellant,
vs.
Clara Noa, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.
Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith, PLC and Phillip S. Howell and T. Lee Smith (Fort Lauderdale), Link & Rockenbach, PA and Kara Rockenbach Link and Daniel M. Schwarz (West Palm Beach), for appellant.
The Nation Law Firm and Mark A. Nation and Paul W. Pritchard (Longwood), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Huggins v. Siegel, 336 So. 3d 58, 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“The standard of review for a trial court’s Daubert decision is an abuse of discretion.”); Peng v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 337 So. 3d 488, 493-94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[W]e conclude that Salleh’s testimony, while unclear, was not contradictory . . . any discrepancies between Salleh’s affidavit and his deposition may provide fertile ground for cross-examination but should not serve as the basis for his being stricken under Daubert . . . Salleh applied a similar roof-inspection methodology to that of Citizens’s inspectors . . . Both sets of inspectors, therefore, applied a standard, reliable roof inspection method that serves to assist the trier of fact.”); Hernandez v. CGI Windows & Doors, Inc., 347 So. 3d 113, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Bender v. State, 472 So. 2d 1370, 1371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“[T]he hearsay rule poses no obstacle to expert testimony premised, in part, as here, upon tests, records, data, or opinions of another, where such information is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”); Florio v. Eng, 879 So. 2d 678, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“A party is entitled to have the jury instructed on his theory of the case when the evidence, viewed in a light favorable thereto, substantially supports the theory even though that theory is controverted.”); Allen v. State, 322 So. 3d
3 589, 598 n.4 (Fla. 2021) (“[U]nreviewable, invited error occurs when a party either proposes (i.e., requests) an instruction and therefore cannot argue against its correctness on appeal, or when a party is aware a standard instruction or an instruction proposed by another party is incorrect but agrees to its use anyway and as a result of having affirmatively agreed to the instruction cannot argue against its correctness on appeal.”); Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47, 65 (Fla. 2012) (“Fundamental error is [] waived where defense counsel affirmatively agrees to an improper instruction. Fundamental error is waived under the invited error doctrine because ‘a party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal.’” (quoting Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So. 2d 197, 202 (Fla. 2001))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Noa, 58 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…a similar roof-inspection methodology to that of Citizens’s inspectors . . . Both sets of inspectors, therefore, applied a standard, reliable roof inspection method that serves to assist the trier of fact.”); Hernandez v. CGI Windows & Doors, Inc., 347 So. 3d 113, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Bender v. State, 472 So. 2d 1370, 1371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“[T]he hearsay rule poses no obstacle to expert testimon…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Arias (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…was unsound, then Arias would have the opportunity to challenge it by cross-examination. As this Court has said, in applying the Daubert rubric, the focus is on what the expert did rather than on what he concluded. Peng v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 337 So. 3d 488, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). We reverse the December 16, 2022 order striking Loomis as an expert witness for Citizens. D. Conclusion Because these interlocutory orders were essential to the trial court’s ultimate judgment, we reverse them and the final…
Authorities Cited
- Universal Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012)
- Soven v. SUN Bank OF Miami, 472 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Maximillion A. Florio v. ENG, 879 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Noa, 58 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)