UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC.
v.
AFFILIATED HEALTHCARE CENTERS, INC., A/A/O WILSON BAQUERO
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 proponent of business records under Florida Statute § 90.803(6) need only lay foundation using the language of the statute or a close approximation thereof, without requiring the testifying witness to detail the basis for familiarity with business practices.
[1] Under Florida Statute § 90.803(6), a proponent of a business record lays sufficient foundation by using the statutory language or a close approximation thereof, and the t…
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“the proponent of a business record need only lay foundation 'using the language of the statute or a close approximation of it,' and that the testifying witness is not required 'detail the basis for his or her familiarity with the relevant business practices of the company or give additional details about those practices as part of the initial foundation because this would be inconsistent with the plain language of the statute'”
Court's holding on the proper foundation requirements for business records under Florida Statute § 90.803(6)
United Automobile Insurance Company appealed a trial court's evidentiary ruling regarding the admissibility of business records in a case involving Af…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidence Admission cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Irving v. State, 627 So. 2d 92, 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“A trial court has wide discretion concerning the admissibility of evidence, and a ruling on admissibility will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.” (citing Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024, 1029 (Fla. 1981))); Jackson v. Household Fin. Corp. III, 298 So. 3d 531, 536–37 (Fla. 2020) (holding that under section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes, the proponent of a business record need only lay foundation “using the language of the statute or a close approximation of it,” and that the testifying witness is not required “detail the basis for his or her familiarity with the relevant business practices of the company or give additional details about those practices as part of the initial foundation because this would be inconsistent with the plain language of the statute” (citations omitted)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1981)
- Irving v. State, 627 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Jackson v. Household Fin. Corp. III, 298 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 2020)