Florida courts now apply the Daubert framework through Florida Statutes § 90.702. This article covers the statute, the move from Frye to Daubert, how courts assess reliability, motion practice, and a practical review workflow for defense counsel and claims professionals.
This article is legal information, not advice on any specific case. Verify authority against current law before relying on it.
Key Takeaways
- Florida's expert-admissibility test rests on Daubert and § 90.702; confirm it against current law.
- The proponent bears the burden on helpfulness, sufficient facts, reliable methods, and application.
- Daubert tests reliability and fit, not whether the judge likes the conclusion.
- A strong challenge targets one opinion and one concrete defect.
Florida's Daubert Standard: Legal Foundation and Development
Section 90.702 is the operative rule. Its current text, available on Online Sunshine, reflects the 2013 amendment (ch. 2013-107).
The Florida transition from Frye to Daubert
- 2013: The Legislature amends § 90.702 to adopt the Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho standards.
- February 2017: In In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 210 So. 3d 1231, the Court declines to adopt the amendments as procedural and leaves the constitutional question for a live case.
- October 2018: DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219, holds the change procedural, finds a legislative intrusion on rulemaking authority, and reaffirms Frye.
- May 2019: In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 278 So. 3d 551, adopts § 90.702 as a procedural rule, effective immediately.
The dispute was about who controls court procedure, the Legislature or the Supreme Court. Since 2019 that question is settled for current practice: Daubert applies, and DeLisle no longer controls.
What § 90.702 requires
The witness must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Beyond that, the testimony must:
- Assist the trier of fact
- Rest on sufficient facts or data
- Be the product of reliable principles and methods
- Reflect a reliable application of those methods to the case facts
The judge as gatekeeper
The trial judge screens qualifications, relevance, reliability, and fit. The hearing is not a trial on the merits or a credibility contest.
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions shape the inquiry:
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner: Judges may reject an opinion tied to the data only by the expert's say-so, or separated by too great an analytical gap.
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael: Gatekeeping extends to technical and experience-based testimony; reliability factors are flexible, not mandatory.
Burden and level of proof
The proponent bears the burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Baan v. Columbia County, 180 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), so holds. Proving reliability is different from proving correctness. Where evidence supports competing versions of disputed facts, the jury decides between them.
How Florida Courts Evaluate Expert Testimony Under Daubert
The analysis is flexible and case-specific. The statute sets the requirements, and the commonly cited factors are tools for deciding whether those requirements are met, not a checklist.
Qualifications, relevance, and helpfulness
Courts ask whether the witness knows something beyond ordinary juror understanding and whether that knowledge will actually help on the issue in dispute. Impressive credentials do not make every opinion admissible.
Differences in relative expertise usually go to weight once the threshold is met. In De Cardenas v. White Pine Insurance Co., No. 3D23-0195 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 31, 2026), the court held that an engineering degree is not always required and reversed the wholesale exclusion of a property-loss expert.
Fit between the method, evidence, and opinion
A reliable method must address the question in dispute and connect to the facts of this case. A typical failure looks like this: a physician uses an accepted differential diagnosis, yet nothing in the record shows that method can support a precise percentage split between a prior condition and a new injury. The method is fine. The leap to that conclusion is not.
The commonly cited reliability considerations
Courts often look to five considerations:
- Whether the theory or technique can be, and has been, tested
- Peer review and publication
- Known or potential error rate
- Standards controlling the technique's operation
- General acceptance in the relevant community
General acceptance is one factor here, not the controlling Frye test. Which factors matter depends on the expertise. A treating physician relying on clinical experience will not be judged by error rates the way a lab technique would. Authoritative case law guides which factors apply; none is automatic in every matter.
Sufficient facts, reliable methods, and reliable application
Courts examine what the expert relied on, how complete and sound the data is, and whether the expert actually followed the stated method. Experience can support an opinion. But the expert must explain how that experience, together with records, testing, or literature, leads to the specific conclusion.
Pure opinion and unsupported conclusions
"Pure opinion" is a conclusion without a visible reasoning process. Florida decisions draw the line this way:
- Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2007): Under the old Frye regime, experience-based pure opinion was exempt from Frye. It is historical, not a present Daubert exemption.
- Giaimo v. Florida Autosport, Inc., 154 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014): A treating neurosurgeon's 85%/15% apportionment identified no principles or methods, so the court reversed despite his qualifications.
- Baan: Experience-based opinions were admissible where the physician explained how experience led to the conclusion and was reliably applied.
- Booker v. Sumter County Sheriff's Office, 166 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015): The challenge failed as untimely and insufficiently directed at particular opinions.
Experience is allowed. It is not self-validating.
How to Challenge or Defend Expert Testimony in Florida
Treat this as a workflow, and check the current Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, any criminal rules, local orders, and the scheduling order in your case.
Identify the opinion-specific challenge
Do not object to "the expert." For each opinion, identify:
- The subject matter and exact conclusion
- The facts and data relied on
- The methodology and the steps of application
- The precise relief sought, whether exclusion or limitation
On the defense side of disclosure, make the same things clear for your own expert: opinions, bases, materials, and method. Current Rule 1.280(c)(5) allows interrogatories on expert identity, subject matter, opinions, and grounds, and lets you depose disclosed trial experts without a court order.
Timing, preservation, and motion sufficiency
Timing matters. Booker says a challenge should follow receipt of the report promptly, and certainly by the deposition. Late challenges may be refused.
In SDI Quarry v. Gateway Estates Park Condominium Ass'n, 249 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), failure to raise a Daubert objection or request a hearing left the issue unpreserved. Rule 1.200 case-management deadlines are strictly enforced.
A facially sufficient motion:
- Names the witness and the opinions
- States the specific defect
- Cites authority and, where appropriate, competing literature or expert material
- Explains why the defect goes to admissibility, not weight
Suspicion and theoretical questions about qualifications are not enough.
Build the evidentiary record
Useful materials include reports, depositions, CVs, publications, testing materials, professional standards, underlying records, and competing expert opinions.
Keep two categories apart: materials the court may use to assess the foundation, and materials that will ultimately reach the jury.
Under § 90.704, facts reasonably relied upon by experts need not be admissible. Facts that are otherwise inadmissible cannot be disclosed to the jury unless their probative value in evaluating the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
Hearing or paper review
There is no mandatory standalone hearing. De Cardenas confirms the court may rely on reports and affidavits, but must still build an adequate record and perform the § 90.702 analysis.
A hearing does not cure inadequate findings either. In State Farm v. Nob Hill Family Chiropractic, No. 4D21-0204 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 29, 2021), conclusory findings after a two-day hearing led to reversal.
Be ready to say why a hearing is or is not needed and how your proposed procedure serves a just, speedy, and economical result.
Separate admissibility from weight and credibility
Disputed assumptions, omissions, testing choices, or the persuasiveness of a recognized method usually belong to cross-examination and competing proof. Courts cannot weigh competing evidence under the guise of admissibility.
Exclusion or limitation fits different defects:
- Speculation
- An unexplained analytical gap
- An unreliable method
- Insufficient facts
- Failure to apply the method to the case
A document-review workflow for high-volume defense matters
Organize each expert opinion by issue, source record, factual assumption, methodology, calculation, supporting authority, and anticipated counterargument. An attorney should review everything before it is used in litigation.
A purpose-built platform such as OraClaim can help defense teams centralize expert analyses, classify case materials, and surface gaps or inconsistencies across a claim file. It does not decide admissibility, replace counsel, or remove the need to validate sources and protect confidential information.
Frye Versus Daubert and the Scope of Florida's Rule
Frye versus Daubert. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), asks whether the underlying scientific principle has gained general acceptance in its field. Daubert is broader: reliability, relevance, fit, and application. General acceptance remains relevant, just not exclusive.
State versus federal court. Florida state courts apply § 90.702. Federal courts in Florida apply Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The 2023 federal amendment expressly requires the proponent to show it is "more likely than not" that each requirement is met. The committee note also rejects treating sufficiency of basis and reliable application as weight-only issues. Florida's text has no such clause, but Baan imposes a preponderance burden anyway.
Administrative and workers' compensation forums. Be careful here:
- Section 120.569(2)(g) admits evidence commonly relied on by reasonably prudent persons, even if inadmissible in court.
- Florida Industrial Power Users Group v. Graham, 209 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 2017), held the Evidence Code does not govern administrative proceedings as it does courts, leaving the agency with discretion. It is not a Daubert merits holding.
- SDI Quarry held that Daubert would still apply in Chapter 120 proceedings, but a Florida Bar analysis notes tension with Graham and no uniform resolution.
- Workers' compensation is outside Chapter 120 under § 440.021, yet Giaimo and Booker applied § 90.702 to compensation expert evidence.
There is no single rule for every Florida forum.
Common Grounds for Exclusion and Practical Review Tips
Recurring defects include:
- A witness unqualified for the particular opinion
- Testimony that does not assist the fact-finder
- Unsupported pure opinion
- Insufficient facts or data
- Unreliable methodology, or failure to follow it
- Opinions that do not fit the disputed facts
Questions to ask in review:
- What exactly is the opinion?
- What facts support it, and what assumptions were made?
- Can the method be explained and tested?
- What standards or literature support it?
- Did the expert apply the same rigor in litigation as outside it?
Avoid overreaching. A motion that merely disputes credibility, competing factual inferences, or the expert's choice among accepted methods tends to fail. In those cases, focused cross-examination, a competing expert, a limiting instruction, or a motion aimed at a different legal issue is usually the stronger remedy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What do the Frye standard and Daubert ruling determine?
Both govern admissibility and reliability of expert testimony. Frye centers on general acceptance, while Daubert uses a broader reliability-and-fit inquiry. Florida currently applies Daubert through § 90.702.
What are the four pillars of an expert witness?
That is informal language, not a Florida legal test. Section 90.702 addresses qualification, helpfulness, sufficient facts or data, reliable methods, and reliable application.
What is the 33-day rule in Florida?
No authoritative source ties a "33-day rule" to Florida expert disclosures, Daubert motions, or expert testimony. Rely on the scheduling order and Rules 1.200 and 1.280 for expert deadlines instead.
Does Florida follow the Daubert or Frye standard?
Florida courts follow Daubert under § 90.702, adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in 2019 in In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code. Federal court and specialized forums may require separate analysis.
When can a Florida court exclude expert testimony under Daubert?
Exclusion can follow failures of qualification, helpfulness, sufficient facts, reliable methodology, reliable application, or fit. Credibility and weight disputes generally are not enough on their own.
Is a Daubert hearing always required in Florida?
No. Under De Cardenas, the court may use paper review, argument, or a hearing, but must make adequate findings. Raise the objection and seek a ruling to preserve it, as SDI Quarry shows.
