You’ll get them when you get them

THE WEEK IN TORTS

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 40

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 9, 2026

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT AMENDS INITIAL DISCOVERY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS—PARTIES ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO AUTOMATICALLY PRODUCE DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING THEIR DAMAGES COMPUTATIONS BUT MUST MAKE THEM AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING

In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280, 51 Fla. L. Weekly S301 (Fla. October 8, 2026):

The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to Rule 1.280(a)(1)(C), governing initial discovery disclosures, to bring Florida’s requirements more closely in line with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1).

Under the existing rule, parties are required to provide a computation of each category of claimed damages, together with copies of the documents or other evidentiary materials supporting those computations, including materials concerning the nature and extent of injuries.

The amended rule eliminates the requirement that parties automatically furnish copies of those supporting documents as part of their initial disclosures.

Instead, parties must provide their damages computations and make the supporting documents and materials available for inspection and copying pursuant to Rule 1.350.

The amendment does not eliminate the obligation to disclose the basis for claimed damages. Nor does it eliminate the distinction between economic and noneconomic damages. Parties are not required to provide mathematical computations of noneconomic damages but must still disclose the categories of damages claimed.

For practitioners, the important distinction is between identifying and making supporting materials available and actually producing copies with the initial disclosures. The amended rule requires the former, but no longer automatically requires the latter.

The amendments become effective January 1, 2027, at 12:01 a.m.

TRIAL COURT DID NOT DEPART FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW BY REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS WHO MOVED TO TEXAS AFTER THEIR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IN MIAMI DADE COUNTY TO RETURN TO MIAMI FOR COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS (ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT AGREED TO PAY THEIR REASONABLE TRAVEL EXPENSES)

Cabrera v. Cabrera, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D2005 (Fla. 3d DCA September 30, 2026):

The plaintiffs filed a personal injury action arising from a March 2024 automobile accident in Miami-Dade County. After the accident, the plaintiffs moved to Texas.

The defendant sought compulsory medical examinations of the plaintiffs in Miami-Dade County pursuant to Rule 1.360. The plaintiffs moved for a protective order, arguing that they should not be required to travel from Texas to Florida for the examinations. The trial court denied their motion and ordered the examinations to proceed in Miami-Dade County.

The plaintiffs sought certiorari review.

The appellate court denied the petition, explaining that Rule 1.360 requires a request for a physical examination to specify a reasonable time, place, manner, conditions, and scope. The rule does not require that the examination occur in the plaintiff’s county or state of residence.

Where a compulsory medical examination will take place is a matter committed to the trial court’s discretion. Courts have upheld orders requiring parties to travel outside their home counties, and there is no hard-and-fast rule prohibiting such examinations.

Here, the accident occurred in Miami-Dade County, and the defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiffs’ reasonable and documented travel expenses. Under those circumstances, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion or departure from the essential requirements of law.