SARUP
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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.
A trial court's exclusion of an expert witness cannot be meaningfully reviewed on appeal when the appellate record is limited and does not provide sufficient information for review.
[1] An appellate court cannot meaningfully review a trial court's exclusion of expert testimony when the appellate record is limited and insufficient to permit such review.
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 intelligenceAnkur Sarup appealed a trial court decision that excluded his designated expert witness, who was his only causation expert in a property insurance dis…
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 Appellate Record Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL F FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ANKUR SARUP, Appellant,
V.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 2D2025-0953
August 21, 2026
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Amy M. Williams, Judge.
Matthew K. Mullinax of Makris & Mullinax, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
David T. Burr, C. Ryan Jones, and Scot E. Samis, of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Although the trial court excluded the appellant's designated expert witness, who was his only causation expert, we are constrained to affirm because we cannot meaningfully review this issue on the limited appellate record before us. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior publication.
2