CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NOA (2025)

Affirmed. See Huggins v. Siegel, 336 So. 3d 58, 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“The standard of review for a trial court's Daubert decision is an abuse of discretion.”); Peng v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 337 So. 3d 488, 493-94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[W]e conclude that Salleh's testimony, while unclear, was not contradictory ․ any discrepancies between Salleh's affidavit and his deposition may provide fertile ground for cross-examination but should not serve as the basis for his being stricken under Daubert ․ Salleh applied a similar roof-inspection methodology to that of Citizens's inspectors ․ Both sets of inspectors, therefore, applied a standard, reliable roof inspection method that serves to assist the trier of fact.”); Hernandez v. CGI Windows & Doors, Inc., 347 So. 3d 113, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“We review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Bender v. State, 472 So. 2d 1370, 1371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“[T]he hearsay rule poses no obstacle to expert testimony premised, in part, as here, upon tests, records, data, or opinions of another, where such information is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”); Florio v. Eng, 879 So. 2d 678, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“A party is entitled to have the jury instructed on his theory of the case when the evidence, viewed in a light favorable thereto, substantially supports the theory even though that theory is controverted.”); Allen v. State, 322 So. 3d 589, 598 n.4 (Fla. 2021) (“[U]nreviewable, invited error occurs when a party either proposes (i.e., requests) an instruction and therefore cannot argue against its correctness on appeal, or when a party is aware a standard instruction or an instruction proposed by another party is incorrect but agrees to its use anyway and as a result of having affirmatively agreed to the instruction cannot argue against its correctness on appeal.”); Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47, 65 (Fla. 2012) (“Fundamental error is [ ] waived where defense counsel affirmatively agrees to an improper instruction. Fundamental error is waived under the invited error doctrine because ‘a party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal.’ ” (quoting Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So. 2d 197, 202 (Fla. 2001))).

PER CURIAM.