To put an expert on the stand in a Florida courtroom, you have to satisfy Section 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code, which sets the state’s expert witness requirements under the Daubert standard. The witness must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; the opinion must rest on sufficient facts or data; the methodology must be reliable; and the expert must have applied that methodology reliably to the facts of the case. The trial judge decides whether all of that is met before the jury hears a word.
Who Qualifies as an Expert
Florida defines expert qualification broadly. Under Section 90.702, a witness qualifies through “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” in a relevant field.1Florida Senate. Florida Statutes 90.702 – Testimony by Experts A formal degree is not always required. A machinist with 30 years of hands-on experience may qualify to testify about equipment failures just as readily as a Ph.D. engineer, provided the background gives the witness knowledge the jury needs.
The threshold question is usefulness. The specialized knowledge must “assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.”1Florida Senate. Florida Statutes 90.702 – Testimony by Experts If an average juror could reach the same conclusion without help, the court may exclude the testimony as unnecessary. Many expert challenges begin here — not with the science, but with whether the testimony adds anything a jury couldn’t figure out on its own.
Florida also allows experts to testify on ultimate issues, meaning the very questions the jury must decide.2Florida Senate. Florida Statutes 90.703 – Opinion on Ultimate Issue An accident reconstructionist can say outright that a driver was negligent. A medical expert can testify that a product caused the plaintiff’s injury. The jury still decides how much weight to give the opinion, but the expert is not barred from stating it.
The Three Admissibility Requirements
Once the witness is qualified, the opinion itself must clear three statutory hurdles under Section 90.702. These are the core of the Daubert analysis in Florida:
- Sufficient facts or data. The opinion cannot rest on speculation or inadequate information. An economist projecting lost earnings from incomplete employment records, or a medical expert opining on causation without reviewing the plaintiff’s full treatment history, may fail this prong.
- Reliable principles and methods. Courts look at whether the method has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, whether it has a known error rate, and whether it is generally accepted in the relevant field. These are guideposts, not a mandatory checklist, and courts weigh them flexibly depending on the type of expertise involved.
- Reliable application to the case facts. Even a sound methodology fails if the expert applies it sloppily or to the wrong set of facts. An engineer using a valid stress-testing model still has to apply it to the actual materials and conditions at issue.1Florida Senate. Florida Statutes 90.702 – Testimony by Experts
The party offering the expert bears the burden of laying a proper foundation. The standard is not perfection. The proponent must show that “more likely than not the opinion is reliable,” not that the opinion is correct. The question is whether the expert followed a trustworthy process, not whether the jury should ultimately believe the conclusion.
Daubert’s reach extends beyond hard science. The gatekeeping obligation applies to all expert testimony, including technical and experience-based knowledge, not just testimony rooted in laboratory science.3Justia. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael Accountants, vocational rehabilitation specialists, and industry veterans face the same reliability screen as molecular biologists.
What Experts Can Rely On
Florida gives experts unusual latitude in the data they use. Under Section 90.704, an expert may base testimony on facts or data “perceived by, or made known to, the expert at or before the trial.” Those underlying facts do not have to be independently admissible, as long as they are “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject.”4FindLaw. In Re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code A treating physician can rely on statements a patient made during an examination, even though those statements might be hearsay if offered directly.
There is a guardrail. The party offering the opinion cannot disclose otherwise inadmissible underlying facts to the jury unless the court finds that their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion “substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.” That prevents a backdoor around hearsay rules. You cannot call an expert just to get inadmissible evidence in front of the jury under the guise of explaining the basis for an opinion.
Section 90.705 controls when the factual basis has to come out. By default, an expert can give an opinion and reasons without first disclosing the underlying facts or data. On cross-examination, the expert must specify those facts and data when asked.5Online Sunshine. Florida Statutes 90.705 – Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion Before the expert gives the opinion, the opposing party can also request a voir dire examination focused on the underlying basis. If that examination shows the expert lacks a sufficient foundation, the testimony becomes inadmissible unless the offering party cures the deficiency.
How Florida Got to Daubert
Florida used the Frye “general acceptance” test for decades. The Legislature amended Section 90.702 in 2013 to adopt Daubert, but the Florida Supreme Court initially rejected the amendment as procedural, holding in DeLisle v. Crane Co. that Frye still governed.6Justia Law. DeLisle v. Crane Co. In May 2019, the Court reversed itself in In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code and adopted the Daubert amendments to Sections 90.702 and 90.704 as procedural rules, effective immediately.4FindLaw. In Re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code Daubert has been the undisputed standard in Florida state courts since.
Challenging Expert Testimony
The primary tool for keeping unreliable testimony out is the Daubert motion. A party challenging an expert must identify the specific opinion being targeted, the methodology at issue, and why it falls short. Vague objections that simply invoke “Daubert” without specifics are insufficient, and courts are justified in refusing to hear them. The motion should be supported by conflicting expert analysis or literature pointing to methodological problems.
Timing matters. A Daubert challenge must be raised as soon as the party becomes reasonably aware of the basis for it. Waiting until the eve of trial without justification can result in denial as untimely. After filing, the moving party has to push for a hearing; letting the motion sit on the docket is treated as a waiver.
The trial judge has broad discretion over what kind of hearing to hold. It may be a paper review of the expert’s report, a full evidentiary hearing with live testimony, or a decision deferred until trial. Formal Daubert hearings are most useful in complex cases with multiple competing experts. Parties can submit materials that would be inadmissible at trial, such as peer-reviewed articles, consulting expert affidavits, and industry standards, to help the court evaluate reliability.
Even when testimony survives a Daubert motion, cross-examination remains the main adversarial check. Section 90.706 gives Florida attorneys a specific tool: authoritative publications.7Online Sunshine. Florida Statutes 90.706 – Authoritativeness of Literature for Use in Cross-Examination If a treatise, journal article, or textbook contradicts the expert, an attorney can confront the expert with it, provided the expert recognizes the source as authoritative or the trial court independently finds it to be authoritative and relevant.
Disclosure and Deposition of Testifying Experts
Florida requires detailed pretrial disclosure about anyone a party plans to call as an expert. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5), interrogatories can require the opposing side to identify each expected expert, the subject matter of the testimony, the substance of the opinions, and a summary of the factual basis for each opinion. That includes the scope and compensation for the expert’s work in the case, the expert’s general litigation experience and the split between plaintiff and defense work, and other cases in which the expert has recently testified.
How much of the expert’s overall practice involves serving as a witness is discoverable, and it speaks to credibility. A jury may view a witness who earns most of their income from testifying differently from a practicing clinician who testifies once or twice a year. Florida limits deeper financial intrusion, though. An expert cannot be compelled to produce personal financial or business records absent unusual and compelling circumstances.
Any expert expected to testify can be deposed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390, without a court order, regardless of where the expert lives. The deposition can be used at trial. The expert is entitled to a reasonable witness fee set by the court if the parties cannot agree on compensation for the deposition time.
One boundary worth flagging: these disclosure rules apply to testifying experts, not consulting experts. A consultant retained only to help the legal team evaluate the case is generally shielded from discovery. That protection ends the moment the expert is designated as a trial witness, at which point communications with counsel, documents provided to the expert, and the expert’s notes all become fair game.
Paying Experts: What’s Allowed
Florida permits parties to pay experts a reasonable fee for reviewing case materials, preparing analyses, sitting for depositions, and testifying. Under Florida Bar Rule 4-3.4(b), lawyers may pay that reasonable fee but cannot offer inducements for testimony or tie payment to what the expert says. Contingency arrangements — paying an expert only if the client wins — cross that line, because the financial incentive to shade opinions undermines the impartiality courts expect.8The Florida Bar. Lawyers Must Be Careful When Paying Witnesses
The Florida Supreme Court has also cautioned against a broad reading of what counts as compensable “preparation.” Paying an expert for tasks directly related to preparing for, attending, or testifying at proceedings is permitted. Stretching that to cover general case work or strategy assistance risks crossing into improper territory, and the Court has warned that an overly broad reading “could open the door to purchasing testimony under the pretext of such assistance.”
Hourly rates vary widely by field, credentials, and complexity. Medical experts and engineers at the top of their specialties routinely charge several hundred dollars an hour for testimony-related work; experts in less specialized fields charge considerably less. When parties and an expert cannot agree on a deposition fee, the court can set a reasonable amount so the disagreement does not stall discovery.