Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 90.406
Total Results: 30
788 So. 2d 992, 2001 WL 6187
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 2001 | Docket: 1286759
Cited 26 times | Published
...State Farm had the burden of proving cancellation in accordance with the provisions of the policy. See Cat `N Fiddle, Inc. v. Century Ins. Co., 213 So.2d 701, 704 (Fla.1968); Best Meridian Ins. Co. v. Tuaty, 752 So.2d 733, 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Under section 90.406, Florida Statutes (2000), evidence of a business routine with regard to mailing letters is admissible to show that the letter in question was mailed in accordance with the routine practice....
990 So. 2d 639, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13824, 2008 WL 4146663
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2008 | Docket: 1687449
Cited 10 times | Published
...The trial judge correctly rejected that argument during trial. The Code expressly permits evidence that a corporation acted in conformity with corporate policy. [6] The argument that Findeisen's experience in the corporation was too remote to be reliable is misplaced in the organizational context of § 90.406....
...can possibly be, upsetting it very rarely and only with undeniable provocation."). [5] And then we would have a Puryear problem. See Puryear v. State, 810 So.2d 901 (Fla.2002) ("this Court does not intentionally overrule itself sub silentio."). [6] § 90.406, Fla....
880 So. 2d 1253, 2004 WL 1920005
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 2004 | Docket: 1294959
Cited 10 times | Published
...Tabb to prove the contrary. See §§ 90.301, .302, Fla. Stat. (2001). [3] Evidence of Memorial's routine of including a NICA brochure in each pre-registration packet is admissible to prove that Tabb received the brochure when she pre-registered. See § 90.406, Fla....
...t Tabb received the brochure. Instead, the ALJ should have weighed and considered the evidence as any other type of evidence. See Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Alvarez, 443 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In Lumbermens, the court explained the effect of section 90.406 and also explained that the evidence of a routine practice did not establish a presumption but, instead, would support only an inference that the practice was followed in the case: The impact of Section 90.406 on the case at hand is that [the defendant's] testimony as to the routine practice of the insurance agency is not to be disregarded, as it was below, merely because it is uncorroborated and indeed is contradicted by [the plaintiff's] "...
977 So. 2d 594, 2007 WL 4105356
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2007 | Docket: 2507746
Cited 9 times | Published
...Hence we conclude that the issue was properly preserved for review. That leaves us to decide whether the trial court erred by excluding the proposed evidence of the hospital's practice. To answer this question, we turn first to the applicable statute. Section 90.406, Florida Statutes states, Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that *599 the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice. § 90.406 Fla....
...Prior to the enactment of the Evidence Code, some courts held that proof of a routine practice was admissible only if there were some independent evidence that the practice was followed at the time of the event in question. See Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 406.1 (2007 ed.). However, it is clear from the text of section 90.406 and the applicable cases that evidence of a routine practice is now admissible without such a showing....
414 So. 2d 1169
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1982 | Docket: 73857
Cited 9 times | Published
...There being competent, substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial judge, whose function it was as trier of fact to determine its credibility, the final judgment is AFFIRMED. FRANK D. UPCHURCH Jr., and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Neither at the trial level nor on appeal did either party mention or rely on section 90.406, Florida Statutes (1979), The Florida Evidence Code, which reads as follows: Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that t...
752 So. 2d 733, 2000 WL 313574
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 2000 | Docket: 1682298
Cited 8 times | Published
...Under the Evidence Code, "Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and *736 regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice." § 90.406, Fla....
472 So. 2d 1338, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1798
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 1985 | Docket: 1793469
Cited 8 times | Published
...Brian testified that when he went to get his license his father accompanied him because they both knew a parent had to sign for Brian. Otis testified that he did not recall signing any documents concerning Brian's application for a driver's license. Section 90.406, Florida Statutes (1979), states: "Routine practice....
881 So. 2d 89, 2004 WL 1877360
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 2004 | Docket: 1466198
Cited 8 times | Published
...ailing date shown on the face of the decision is, by itself, insufficient to rebut a party's claim that he or she did not receive timely notice of the decision" is neither the holding in this case nor a principle that has been adopted by this court. Section 90.406, Florida Statutes, states, Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or *93 not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice. Professor Ehrhardt in his treatise on evidence comments on the statutory section: When a business or other organization establishes a routine method of performing a particular act, proof of that routine method is admissible under section 90.406 to prove that the act occurred on a particular occasion, even though there is no corroboration that the act occurred. Evidence of a business's routine office procedure with regard to mailing letters will be admissible to show the letter in question was mailed. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 90.406 (2004 Edition)....
...utine business practices. While the cases from the other district courts cited by the majority appear to stand for the proposition that we should deviate from the general business practice rule in unemployment compensation cases, they do not cite to section 90.406, nor do they set forth a compelling reason for departing from the general rule embodied within the statute....
447 So. 2d 377, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12297
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1984 | Docket: 1312115
Cited 6 times | Published
...All appellee has introduced is an earlier personal indemnification agreement signed in 1972 for a surety bond issued to The Travel Counselor as a proprietorship in New York State. Appellee introduced the deposition of an employee who testified, pursuant to section 90.406, Florida Statutes (1981), that appellee's routine practice was to require that both a corporate and a personal indemnification agreement be signed when a surety bond was issued to a corporation....
...required. While it is no longer necessary that a party claiming routine practice offer evidence that the routine practice was followed in the particular instance at issue, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Alvarez, 443 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); section 90.406, Florida Statutes (1981), the party does have to prove by competent evidence what its routine practice is....
443 So. 2d 279, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25240
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1983 | Docket: 1458537
Cited 6 times | Published
...Giffen Industries, Inc., 281 So.2d 897, 900 (Fla. 1973) (a general presumption exists that the ordinary course of business or conduct in respect to mailing was followed in a particular case absent a contrary showing), was effectively done away with in 1979 with the enactment of Section 90.406, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...[1] That section, applicable here, provides: "Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice." *281 The impact of Section 90.406 on the case at hand is that Almerico's testimony as to the routine practice of the insurance agency is not to be disregarded, as it was below, merely because it is uncorroborated and indeed is contradicted by Alvarez's "eyewitness" den...
518 So. 2d 1339, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11742, 1987 WL 3172
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 24, 1987 | Docket: 1778576
Cited 2 times | Published
...Although Brown does not directly overrule Jarrard, this court [1] and another district court of appeal [2] have recognized that Brown appears to have abrogated the Jarrard requirement of separate evidence that customary practice was followed in a specific case. See also section 90.406, Florida Statutes, which provides that evidence of a routine practice of an organization, with corroboration or not, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice....
965 So. 2d 330, 2007 WL 2735936
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 2007 | Docket: 447051
Cited 1 times | Published
...In closing, we note that, even if the mandamus petition had not been procedurally improper, it would still have been erroneously entered since the trial court improperly disregarded the presumption of routine practice in mailing notices prepared by the county and delivered to MSTU for mailing. See § 90.406, Fla....
601 So. 2d 609, 1992 WL 135051
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 19, 1992 | Docket: 1305210
Cited 1 times | Published
...The jury found that Appellee was not liable. Appellant raises four issues, only two of which have merit. We affirm the trial court's decision permitting a former employee of Regal Builders to testify as to his personal knowledge of the routine practices of the organization. § 90.406, Fla....
257 So. 3d 596
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 2018 | Docket: 8040495
Published
related to routine business practices under section 90.406, Florida Statutes (2016), or lack of personal
216 So. 3d 685, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3970
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 2017 | Docket: 4621425
Published
company’s routine business practices under section 90.406, Florida Statutes (2014), may be sufficient
169 So. 3d 1198, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10774, 2015 WL 4268796
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2015 | Docket: 2679194
Published
...“Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether
corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is
admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular
occasion was in conformity with the routine practice.” § 90.406, Fla....
253 So. 3d 679
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2018 | Docket: 7428845
Published
default letter was mailed. Id. (citing § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2014)). But the witness
501 So. 2d 1352, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 396
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 1987 | Docket: 64624838
Published
Florida’s Evidence Code. It was inadmissible under section 90.406, relating to routine practices of organizations
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 2021 | Docket: 29102437
Published
company’s routine business practices under section 90.406, Florida Statutes (20[20]), may be sufficient
553 So. 2d 705, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2446, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7281, 1989 WL 120875
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 26, 1989 | Docket: 1259110
Published
..."Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice." § 90.406, Fla....
242 So. 3d 1189
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2018 | Docket: 6354221
Published
that the default letter was mailed. Id. (citing § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2014)). But the witness must have
246 So. 3d 482
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 2018 | Docket: 6385780
Published
were actually mailed to Borrowers in this case.4 § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2009); Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc
