Filed: Jan. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-3821 JACQUELINE SMITH, Appellee. _/ Decision filed January 26, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Donald A. Myers, Jr., Judge. Thomas E. Scott, Scott A. Cole and Alexandra Valdes, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. Rebecca Bowen
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-3821 JACQUELINE SMITH, Appellee. _/ Decision filed January 26, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Donald A. Myers, Jr., Judge. Thomas E. Scott, Scott A. Cole and Alexandra Valdes, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. Rebecca Bowen C..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D16-3821
JACQUELINE SMITH,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Decision filed January 26, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Donald A. Myers, Jr., Judge.
Thomas E. Scott, Scott A. Cole and
Alexandra Valdes, of Cole, Scott &
Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.
Rebecca Bowen Creed and Bryan S.
Gowdy, of Creed & Gowdy, P.A.,
Jacksonville, and Howard C. Coker,
Joseph V. Camerlengo, Jr., and
Stefano D. Portigliatti, of Coker,
Schickel, Sorenson & Posgay,
Camerlengo & Iracki, Jacksonville,
for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
COHEN, C.J., and WALLIS, J., concur.
EVANDER, J., concurs specially, with opinion
Case No. 5D16-3821
EVANDER, J., concurring specially.
Appellant is correct that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the testimony
of one of its expert witnesses. However, after consideration of the record before us, I
cannot conclude that the error was harmful. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Brago,
544 So. 2d
216, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“After reviewing the record, we conclude that the proffered
testimony—that there was a degeneration in Mrs. Kennedy’s condition after the
accident—was cumulative and therefore its exclusion was harmless.”).
2