SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

ASCENDANT COMMERCIAL INSURANCE, INC.

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 8, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24-1831

Lower Tribunal No. 18-32767-CA-01 Security National Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Ascendant Commercial Insurance, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge.

Kaplan Zeena LLP, and James M. Kaplan, and Daniel M. Hirschman, for appellant.

Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, and Robert M. Klein, and Christopher J. Fraga, for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Levin v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 823 So. 2d 132, 135 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (finding that the court erred in excluding evidence of settlement offers on the ground they are admissible under section 90.408: "Although settlement offers are generally not admissible as evidence in the lawsuit in which the offers are made, an offer of settlement in one case can be relevant in another case.” (citing Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So. 2d 1372, 1376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (finding that evidence of an offer in a pending personal injury case was admissible in a dissolution of marriage case for the purpose of establishing the value of a potential marital asset))); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.330(a)(3)(F) (providing that a deposition may be used for "any purpose if the court finds . . . the witness is an expert or skilled witness."); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Lake Region Packing Ass’n, 211 So. 2d 25, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) (noting a skilled witness has “such skill, knowledge or experience with respect to the subject matter about which he is called to testify that it appears to the trial court that his opinion will probably aid the jury in the resolution of an ultimate issue of fact"); Fred Howland, Inc. v. Morris, 196 So. 472, 475 (Fla. 1940) (“It is within the province of the trial court to determine whether or not a witness offered as a skilled witness has such qualifications and is possessed of sufficient knowledge through experience and observation to warrant his testifying as a skilled witness, and the decision of the trial court is conclusive upon the parties until it appears from the transcript to have been erroneous or to have been founded upon error in law."); see, e.g., id. (finding that a construction professional with 22 years of active experience who was familiar with the specific type of construction and materials involved in an accident qualified as a skilled witness); Drs. Co. v. Plummer, 210 So. 3d 711, 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (concluding that a licensed emergency room physician who was board certified in emergency medicine and had experience treating patients qualified as a skilled witness in a medical malpractice case); see also Young v. State, 645 So. 2d 965, 966-67 (Fla. 1994) (“The policy underlying the exclusion of depositions from the jury room is to prevent the jury from placing undue emphasis on the deposition over the oral testimony presented at trial."); Gills v. Angelis, 312 So. 2d 536, 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (“A jury should not be permitted to take depositions into the jury room because this has the effect of giving superiority to depositions over oral proof.” (citing Schoeppl v. Okolowitz, 133 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961))); Presley v. State, 839 So. 2d 813, 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Although the admission of Mrs. Nelson's out-of-court description improperly corroborated her in-court testimony, we find its admission was harmless where the defense was allowed to cross-examine her on this subject, thereby mitigating the prejudice.").

3