21st Century v. Smith

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.”).