ALL AMERICAN POOL SURFACE, INC., AND JASON EVANS, APPELLANTS,
v.
PAUL JORDAN, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for new trial because forensic accountant's testimony on lost future earning ability was based on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions about the plaintiff's employment benefits.
Expert testimony calculating lost future earning ability was properly excluded because it rested on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions about the plaintiff's employment benefits and compensation structure.
[1] Expert testimony calculating lost future earning capacity must be based on accurate factual assumptions about the plaintiff's actual employment benefits and compensation…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“if plaintiff is being compensated for the rest of his work life for the income he would have received had he worked full time, then the future use of a uniform, which he would no longer have to wear, the future use of a work-related vehicle, which he would no longer have to drive, or the cost of unemployment protection, when he is no longer concerned with being unemployed, is immaterial.”
Court explaining the logical flaw in the expert's methodology for calculating lost earning capacity.
A forensic accountant testified regarding the plaintiff's loss of future earning ability, calculating figures without finalizing them until shortly be…
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 Conjecture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue in this case is whether the testimony of the forensic accountant concerning plaintiffs loss of future earning ability was so based on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions that a new trial should have been ordered by the trial court. The expert’s figures, not finalized until shortly before her testimony and calculated without discussing them with plaintiff or reading his deposition, assumed incorrectly that plaintiff, an hourly rate employee, received the private use of a company car, sick leave, and paid vacations. She further based her testimony on the costs of benefits, including the cost of worker’s compensation protection, cost of uniforms, and cost for the work-related use of a vehicle paid by the employer. Obviously, if plaintiff is being compensated for the rest of his work life for the income he would have received had he worked full time, then the future use of a uniform, which he would no longer have to wear, the future use of a work-related vehicle, which he would no longer have to drive, or the cost of unemployment protection, when he is no longer concerned with being unemployed, is immaterial.
Because we agree that the expert’s testimony was based on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions, we reverse for a new trial on the issue of lost earning ability.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Doctors Co. v. State, 940 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…o account bulk reserves was also an appropriate exercise of the trial court’s discretion. An expert’s opinion testimony is inadmissible if it is grounded on speculation, conjecture, or incorrect assumptions. See All Am. Pool Surface, Inc. v. Jordan, 870 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Thus, the trial court was eminently correct in its ruling to exclude Mr. Schacht’s testimony. Mr. Schacht’s proffered testimony demonstrated that he could not express an opinion on any relevant matter and that he would have…
-
50 State Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Lili Carissa Giangrandi, 132 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…w many times the guard drove past the Giangrandi house, it was pure speculation to opine that had the number of drive-bys 50 State Security conducted been greater, these crimes would not have been committed. See All Am. Pool Surface, Inc. v. Jordan, 870 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (reversing for a new trial where “the expert’s testimony was based on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions .... ”). The majority has failed to identify any competent evidence that 50 State Security breached its…