Fidelity Warranty Services, Inc. v. Firstate Insurance Holdings, Inc., 74 So. 3d 506

Fidelity Warranty Services, Inc. and Jim Moran & Associates, Inc. sue Firstate entities for contractual disputes related to a Puerto Rico warranty program.
The parties amended the Administrative Agreement in 2003, including a promissory note and changes to payment flows and dealer commissions.
JMA terminated the Agreement in October 2003, alleging Firstate breached and diverted funds; Firstate counterclaimed for contract breach, tortious interference, and other claims.
Trial spanned four weeks (2008); the jury found for Firstate on tortious interference and defamation, with damages totaling $6.75 million, and rejected other claims.
Firstate presented expert and non-expert theories to prove damages, including market-value and income-based approaches.
JMA moved for directed verdict on several counts; the trial court denied some, and the appellate court later reversed portions related to tortious interference and defamation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Eldridge's market value testimony	Eldridge is an owner, not an expert; testimony should be excluded or properly disclosed.	Owner may testify to value; testimony is admissible as lay opinion under control of discovery.	Erroneous to permit undisclosed expert-like testimony; should have excluded or allowed rebuttal expert.
Actionability of defamation claim	Statement that Firstate charged fraudulent rates was defamatory, not pure opinion.	Statement was pure opinion based on disclosed facts and context; not actionable.	Statement viewed in context was pure opinion; directed verdict for JMA on defamation was correct.
Tortious interference damages proof	Market value of Firstate's business demonstrates total destruction and damages.	Damages were not properly proven; the valuation method was speculative.	Firstate failed to prove correct measure of damages; directed verdict should have been granted for JMA on tortious interference.
Parol evidence regarding the written agreement	Parol evidence necessary to interpret terms and scope of the contract.	Parol evidence should be limited by integration and written terms; no error in admitting or applying.	Not reached on appeal as other issues resolved; remand/consideration deemed unnecessary for prejudgment due to other holdings.

Trailer Ranch, Inc. v. Levine, 523 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (lay witness sufficiency; owner testimony may require qualification)
Belmont v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 727 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (surprise/undisclosed expert testimony requires new trial)
Office Depot, Inc. v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (mid-trial expert recanting prejudicial; need cure)
Grau v. Branham, 626 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (recall/exam of expert testimony; prejudice and cure)
J.B. (Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. J.B.), 675 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (remedies for prejudice from undisclosed testimony; new trial on damages)
M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., P.A. v. Khosrow Maleki, P.A., 932 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (expert testimony must be based on recognized methodology)
Montage Grp., Ltd. v. Athle-Tech Computer Sys., Inc., 889 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (market-value damages; destruction requires market value measure)
Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (market value under damages; risk considerations)
Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 921 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (speculative damages; reliance on future profits)
Parc Royale E. Dev., Inc. v. U.S. Project Mgmt., Inc., 38 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (fault in tendering market/value methodologies; admissibility)