Cases from cite.case.law:

LEXINGTON CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. LOVE MADISON, INC. d b a, 253 So. 3d 632 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . agreement between the principal and the Florida Department of Financial Services, pursuant to section 90.408 . . . State's Consent Order and Settlement Stipulation, the trial court excluded the evidence based on section 90.408 . . . Section 90.408 provides: "Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity . . . excluding the consent order and other admissions as none of them fall within the purview of section 90.408 . . .

SEBO, v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016)

. . . Statutes, which bars disclosure to the jury of settlement or dismissal of a joint tortfeasor, and section 90.408 . . .

D. RODRIGUEZ, v. OCEAN BANK,, 208 So. 3d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . . .

SANCHEZ, v. TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE,, 181 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “[e]vidence of an offer to compromise a claim . . .

SUGAR, M. D. v. In ESTATE OF STERN,, 201 So. 3d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2014); see also Bern v. . . . voluntarily dismissed that appeal as part of the July 2011 "global” settlement described below.' . § 90.408 . . .

L. CARR, v. STATE, 156 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 2015)

. . . because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.408 . . .

POOLE, v. STATE, 151 So. 3d 402 (Fla. 2014)

. . . Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2007), provides that “[Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative . . .

PANAMA CITY- BAY COUNTY AIRPORT AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, v. KELLOGG BROWN ROOT SERVICES, INC., 140 So. 3d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . But the Supreme Court disagreed, stating: [T]he plain language of sections 768.041(3) and 90.408 expressly . . .

BELLAMY, v. AMERI- PRIDE, INC., 157 So. 3d 1053 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Bellamy’s affidavit relates an offer to compromise a claim and thus would be inadmissible under section 90.408 . . .

MATHIS, v. STATE, 135 So. 3d 484 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . . § 90.408 (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by . . .

BERN, v. CAMEJO, 168 So. 3d 232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . the Florida Supreme Court considered whether, despite the plain language of sections 768.041(3) and 90.408 . . . Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2012) provides: "Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was . . . See Grunow, 71 So.3d at 189 (noting that sections 768.041 and 90.408 do not "prohibit questions of the . . .

PEOPLE S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, v. N. RODDY,, 134 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . This evidence went to the heart of the case and was not “unduly prejudicial” under section 90.408. . . .

WARE, v. STATE, 124 So. 3d 388 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . . § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

VICTORINO, v. STATE v. D., 127 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 2013)

. . . .” § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

D. HALL, v. STATE, 107 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 2012)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

RUBRECHT v. CONE DISTRIBUTING, INC., 95 So. 3d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2010), provides: Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was . . . Appellees counter that their interrogation was not within the limitations of section 90.408 because the . . . Under section 90.408, in addition to evidence of an offer to settle, evidence of statements made during . . . Under the Evidence Code, a request for judicial notice is also subject to analysis under section 90.408 . . . Section 90.408, Florida Statutes, was enacted in 1976. Ch. 76-237, § 1, at 562, Laws of Fla. . . . .

BEDOYA, v. AVENTURA LIMOUSINE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC., 861 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 90.408; see, e.g., Central Soya Co. v. . . .

A. HOLMES, v. STATE, 91 So. 3d 859 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . However, section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2010) requires exclusion of relevant evidence “if its probative . . .

HARRIS v. E. D. GRUNOW, Jr. O. R., 71 So. 3d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . These objectives are embodied in sections 768.041 and 90.408, Florida Statutes (2010). . . . or covenant not to sue, or that any defendant has been dismissed by order of the court,” and section 90.408 . . .

AGROFOLLAJES, S. A. v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY, INC., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. Stat.; Ricks v. Loyola, 822 So.2d 502, 508 (Fla.2002). . . .

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. J. ASHE,, 50 So. 3d 645 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . ’s argument that evidence of his request for flood insurance benefits is inadmissible under section 90.408 . . .

ROTTA, v. ROTTA,, 34 So. 3d 107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. . . .

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. GUILDER,, 23 So. 3d 867 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . See § 90.408. . . .

C. CARTER, v. STATE, 23 So. 3d 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2007), establishes a limitation on the introduction of relevant evidence . . .

ALSFIELD, v. STATE, 22 So. 3d 619 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See §§ 90.402, 90.408, 90.404(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

BLAND, v. GREEN ACRES GROUP, L. L. C. a, 12 So. 3d 822 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 90.408 Fla. . . .

SALEEBY, v. ROCKY ELSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009)

. . . Unlike the majority, I do not believe that sections 90.408 and 768.041, Florida Statutes (2006), prohibit . . . More specifically, section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2006), provides: Evidence of an offer to compromise . . . Thus, the plain language of section 90.408 prohibits the admission of evidence of compromises and offers . . . Thoroughbred Motors, Inc., 765 So.2d 920, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“Section 90.408 excludes evidence of . . . In contrast to section 90.408, section 768.041 includes a more general prohibition against admitting . . . Both sections 768.041 and 90.408, Florida Statutes (2006), prohibit the admission at trial of any evidence . . . Section 90.408 was enacted to protect against the prejudicial effect that settlement evidence may have . . . Jordan and other cases fully illustrate the prejudice that results when sections 768.041 and 90.408 are . . . From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that violation of sections 768.041 and 90.408 is reversible . . . Second, Elson claims that sections 768.041 and 90.408 do not apply when the former defendant testifies . . . Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2006), which deals with settlement offers and negotiations — as distinct . . .

SHREITEH, v. STATE, 987 So. 2d 761 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See also § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

UNITED STATES DEVELOPMENT, LTD. v. JONES COLLEGE,, 973 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2007); Sharp v. Williams, 141 Fla. 1, 192 So. 476 (1940); Alvarez v. . . .

SALEEBY, v. ROCKY ELSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., 965 So. 2d 211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 90.408 excludes evidence of a settlement to prove liability; courts may, however, admit settlement-related . . . Section 90.408 was enacted to protect against the prejudicial effect that settlement evidence may have . . .

BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, v. BASCIANO,, 960 So. 2d 773 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . introduction of the March letters, concluding that they were settlement proposals, excludable under section 90.408 . . . If there is no dispute as to validity, or amount, the section 90.408 prohibition does not apply because . . . Further, section 90.408 only excludes evidence offered to prove “liability or absence of liability for . . . the claim or its value.” § 90.408, Fla. . . . If-the evidence is offered for another purpose, the evidence is not barred by section 90.408 and will . . .

SULLIVAN, v. J. GALSKE J., 917 So. 2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2004). . . .

FLOYD, v. STATE, 913 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2005)

. . . The court found that all of the pictures were relevant, but reviewed each picture under section 90.408 . . .

AGAN, v. KATZMAN KORR, P. A. C. L., 328 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . . § 90.408, because they were obtained during settlement negotiations. . . . Stat. § 90.408; see, e.g., Central Soya Co. v. . . . Stat. § 90.408. . . . Stat. § 90.408. Id. at 963. . . . Stat. § 90.408. . . .

SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. v. HENRY,, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. . . .

G. LEVIN, v. ETHAN ALLEN, INC., 823 So. 2d 132 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . excluding evidence of settlement offers on the ground that settlement offers are inadmissible under section 90.408 . . .

WHITE, v. STATE, 817 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2002)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (1995); Gore v. State, 719 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1998). Id. at 16. . . .

J. RAMIREZ, v. STATE, 810 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2001)

. . . . § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INC. v. E. BALLASSO W., 789 So. 2d 519 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. . . .

LONG TERM CARE FOUNDATION, INC. v. W. MARTIN,, 778 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Furthermore, under section 90.408, Florida Statutes, any relevance the complaint might have had was outweighed . . .

STEPHENS, v. STATE, 787 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2001)

. . . Under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1997), relevant testimony may be excluded if the probative value . . .

A. WOLOWITZ, v. THOROUGHBRED MOTORS, INC., 765 So. 2d 920 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . that even if the “contract confirmation” is relevant it should nevertheless be excluded under section 90.408 . . . Section 90.408 excludes evidence of settlement negotiations only when the evidence is offered to prove . . . addresses issues other than liability and value, it would not necessarily be excluded under section 90.408 . . .

D. OWENS, R. v. ORANGE COUNTY,, 747 So. 2d 467 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . offer to compromise or settle their claims, which made the statement privileged pursuant to section 90.408 . . .

D. EASTMAN, v. FLOR- OHIO, LTD., 744 So. 2d 499 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

STATE v. WALTERS,, 719 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . argued that her statements did not qualify as admissions because they were excludable under section 90.408 . . . Section 90.408 of the Florida Evidence Code specifically renders offers to compromise or settle disputed . . . the victim, we agree with those Florida decisions which have confined the applicability of section 90.408 . . . Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 408.1 n. 2 (1997) (“Section 90.408 may not apply in criminal eases.”). . . .

BOOK, v. CITY OF WINTER PARK,, 718 So. 2d 945 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Statutes, the lawfulness of Book’s arrest, or the nature and extent of Book’s damages, see section 90.408 . . .

STATE v. HOGGINS,, 718 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1998)

. . . See §§ 90.408, 608, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 710 So. 2d 24 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . . § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

L. CHIANG, M. D. v. WILDCAT GROVES, INC. PCA f k a, 703 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . the trial court in accord with the relevant provisions of Florida's Evidence Code, including section 90.408 . . .

SEMINOLE COUNTY, v. CORAL GABLES FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION,, 691 So. 2d 614 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The county argues that section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1995), prohibits the introduction of any evidence . . . It prevails over section 90.408 because the specific prevails over the general and because a later enactment . . .

RITTER, v. T. RITTER,, 690 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . evidence of the offer to the insurance company was inadmissible as an offer to compromise under section 90.408 . . . The trial court granted the motion for protective order, presumably on the authority of section 90.408 . . . Under section 90.408, “[e]vidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity . . . As such, section 90.408 did not bar admission of evidence concerning the offer in this case. . . .

HITCHCOCK, v. STATE, 673 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1996)

. . . See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (1993). . . .

R. SANDLIN L. L. a v. SHAPIRO FISHMAN, ITT, 919 F. Supp. 1564 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . . § 90.408. . . . Settlement agreements as protected by Fla.Stat. § 90.408 are “offers to compromise a claim.” . . .

STATE v. AYLESWORTH, 666 So. 2d 181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . barred the admission of compromise and offers to compromise relying for that determination upon section 90.408 . . . Although we find it unnecessary to pass upon the court’s expressed belief that section 90.408 bars the . . .

REASE, v. ANHEUSER- BUSCH, INC. a, 644 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . involving Rease’s workers’ compensation claim for benefits and thus was inadmissible under section 90.408 . . . Section 90.408 provides that “[e]vi-dence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to . . . Thus, the circumstances are different from those cases that have construed section 90.408 to prohibit . . . Consequently, section 90.408 does not apply to this situation. . . . Section 90.408 has also been held not to apply when the offer of settlement was written prior to the . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 625 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . note also states that “[t]he considerations underlying this rule are similar to those underlying § 90.408 . . . The revision note under § 90.408 explains that the exclusion of offers to compromise a claim is based . . .

CHARLES B. PITTS REAL ESTATE, INC. v. J. HATER, H. J. A. J. Jr. G., 602 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . . § 90.408, Fla.Stat. (1989); see Bill Currie Ford, Inc. v. . . .

STATE v. COCA- COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF MIAMI, INC. a, 582 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery under the Public Records Act; (2) the Evidence Code § 90.408 . . .

SOUTHEAST CAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, a a v. ALBEMARLE HOTEL, INC. a, 550 So. 2d 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . testimony of their subsequent conversations with appellee’s representatives on the basis that section 90.408 . . . substantially new terms does not constitute an offer to compromise a claim as is contemplated by section 90.408 . . .

EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE U. S. v. DIGITAL PRODUCTS CORP., 528 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . to return the loaner unit to appellee as an inadmissible offer to compromise or settle under section 90.408 . . .

SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY v MARSHALL, 32 Fla. Supp. 2d 217 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1988)

. . . See Section 90.408, Florida Statutes. . . .

MARTIN COUNTY, v. MOBIL CORPORATION, 513 So. 2d 243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . See e.g., § 90.408, Fla.Stat. (1981); McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 274 (2d ed. 1972). . . .

SEA CABIN, INC. v. SCOTT, BURK, ROYCE HARRIS, P. A., 496 So. 2d 163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . In addition to the fact that the letter was not authored by appellants, Section 90.408, Florida Statutes . . .

J. R. RAY, Jr. v. STUCKEY, 491 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . a cause of action in that it relied on Nipper’s letter to Ray, allegedly inadmissible under Section 90.408 . . . Ray and the Stuckeys rely heavily on the applicability or not of Section 90.408. . . .

WILLIAMS v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 42 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1986)

. . . Whether falling within the precise purview of Secs. 90.408, 409 and 410, F.S., this disputed evidence . . .

STAMM, v. STAMM,, 489 So. 2d 851 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Gulf Maintenance & Supply, Inc., 424 So.2d 135, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), § 90.408, Fla.Stat. (1985). . . .

H. R. J. BAR- B- Q, INC. d b a B- Q, H. J. U. Hy v. SHAPIRO,, 463 So. 2d 403 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . he was “fired” by one of the defendants was not inadmissible as an offer of compromise under section 90.408 . . .

STATE v. CASTELLANO,, 460 So. 2d 480 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . The admissibility of offers to compromise is addressed in section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983): 90.408 . . .

BENOIT, INC. a v. DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ST. JOHNS RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF FLORIDA a, 463 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983), provides: Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was . . . DCA 1982), that any part of a letter offering a settlement between the parties is barred by section 90.408 . . . See the law revision council note following section 90.408: Florida purports to follow the common-law . . .

MORTGAGE GUARANTEE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a v. B. STEWART d b a, 427 So. 2d 776 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . See e.g., § 90.408, Fla.Stat. (1981); McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 274 (2d ed. 1972). . . .

E. ATWATER v. GULF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPLY, INC., 424 So. 2d 135 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 90.408, Florida Statutes; Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association v. . . .