Rich v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., 103 So. 3d 903

Fred Rich developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure; Abbey Rich (Estate) appeals after jury found no liability.
Defendants Kaiser Gypsum, Union Carbide, and R.T. Vanderbilt were sued for asbestos in products used by Fred.
Trial admitted former testimony of unavailable witnesses under section 90.804(2)(a); depositions Lehnert and Kirk read to jury.
Estate objected to admissibility for lack of privity or similar motive to cross-examine; objections overruled; verdict for defendants.
Court held Florida's 90.804(2)(a) does not require strict privity; focuses on predecessor in interest with similar motive.
Court concluded Lehnert’s deposition was admissible; Rendle/Kirk deposition was harmless error; verdict affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether former testimony was admissible without proving opportunity and similar motive	Estate argues no privity or similar motive exists	Defendants rely on 90.804(2)(a) predecessor in interest	Admissible; court adopts broader predecessor in interest

Osburn v. Stickel, 187 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (privity not strictly required for predecessor in interest analysis)
Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (test for admissibility depends on similarity of motive to cross-examine)
Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc., 580 F.2d 1179 (3d Cir.1978) (predecessor in interest requires shared motive to develop testimony)
Murphy v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 779 F.2d 340 (6th Cir.1985) (predecessor in interest doctrine focuses on motive and equivalence of issues)
Horne v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 4 F.3d 276 (4th Cir.1993) (privity not required; focus on similar motives to examine)
New Eng. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 888 F.2d 646 (10th Cir.1989) (persuasive federal interpretation of predecessor in interest)
Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 722 F.2d 1289 (6th Cir.1983) (test for admissibility involves similar motive to cross-examine)