DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

BROOKS KILLMEYER and MARY MARGARET KILLMEYER,

Appellees.

No. 4D2022-1298

[February 28, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael A. Robinson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19-

008990. 

Daniel M. Schwarz and Kara Rockenbach Link of Link & Rockenbach, 

P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Earl I. Higgs, Jr. of Higgs Law, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

CONNER, J.

The insurer, Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company,

appeals a final judgment in favor of the insureds, arguing that under 

Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981), the trial court 

erred at trial by allowing: (1) a surprise fact witness to testify that a sworn 

proof of loss was sent to the insurer when neither the witness nor the proof 

of loss was disclosed as required by the order setting trial; and (2) the 

insureds’ expert witness to testify about an undisclosed opinion on 

damages. We agree with the first argument and reverse for a new trial. 

We decline to address the second argument because we are remanding for 

a new trial, and we are confident that on retrial the issue is not likely to 

reoccur.

Background

After their home was damaged by a bathroom water supply line which 

failed, the insureds filed a claim with the insurer. The insureds also filed 

a separate claim concerning hurricane damage to their home. The water 

supply line damage claim is the subject of this appeal.
2

The insurer’s desk adjuster sent a letter to the insureds and emailed a 

copy to the insureds’ attorneys, requesting a sworn proof of loss for the 

water supply line loss and a loss repair cost estimate. The insurer later

sent a second letter with the same request.

The insureds contend that on March 22, 2019, they signed a sworn 

proof of loss stating the net amount which they claimed was owed under 

the policy. They further contend a paralegal working for their attorneys

emailed the proof of loss to the desk adjuster on April 3, 2019, along with 

a loss repair estimate prepared by their public adjuster.

The insurer did not respond to the email sending the proof of loss and 

contends it has no knowledge that the email was received.

Three years after the insureds filed the bathroom water supply line

claim, the insureds sued the insurer for breach of contract. The insurer 

answered raising affirmative defenses. The fifth and sixth affirmative 

defenses alleged the insureds failed to provide a proof of loss as requested 

and required by the policy.

In a request for admissions, the insurer asked the insureds to admit or 

deny that prior to filing the complaint, the insureds did not respond to 

correspondence requesting a sworn proof of loss and loss repair estimate. 

The insureds denied that request for admission.

The trial court issued an order setting jury trial and establishing 

deadlines for the parties to file and serve lists identifying fact, expert, and 

rebuttal witnesses, as well as trial exhibits. Pertinent to this appeal, the 

insureds’ exhibit list included: “Any and all correspondence” between the 

insureds or their attorneys and the insurer, its agents, or attorneys. The 

insureds’ exhibit list did not specifically list the April 3, 2019 email

transmitting the proof of loss and loss repair estimate, nor did the 

insureds’ witness list include the paralegal who sent the email.1

Upon reviewing the insurer’s proposed verdict form shortly before the 

trial began, the insureds’ counsel realized the insurer was requesting a 

specific instruction as to whether the insureds provided a proof of loss to

1 The record indicates the insurer received the two attachments to the email—the 

proof of loss and loss repair estimate—earlier in litigation, but not the email itself. 

The loss repair estimate was specifically listed in the insurer’s pretrial exhibit list, 

and the insurer’s corporate representative testified during trial that the insurer 

received the proof of loss during discovery.
3

the insurer. To provide evidence on that issue, the insureds served a lastminute trial subpoena on the insurer’s desk adjuster, but the trial court

quashed the subpoena as the desk adjuster was not specifically named as 

a witness by either party prior to trial.

The insureds called the insurer’s corporate representative as a witness. 

The representative testified if the insurer had received an email containing 

the proof of loss and loss repair estimate, it would have sent a letter 

acknowledging receipt.

The insureds then requested to call the paralegal who had emailed the 

proof of loss and loss repair estimate to the insurer. The trial court, after 

initially denying the request because the paralegal had not been listed as 

a witness, eventually was persuaded to allow the paralegal to testify.

The paralegal then testified regarding his April 3, 2019 email to the 

insurer’s desk adjuster attaching the proof of loss and loss repair estimate. 

The trial court permitted this testimony even though the insurer’s counsel

was not shown a printed copy of the email until immediately before the 

paralegal testified. In addition, from the record before us, it appears the 

insurer was never provided a full digital copy of the email.

The jury returned a verdict in the insureds’ favor for an amount that 

was a few thousand dollars more than the public adjuster’s initial loss 

repair estimate, but substantially less than the amount sought by the 

insureds. The jury specifically found the insurer failed to prove the 

insureds did not provide a sworn proof of loss for the claim.

After denying a motion for new trial raising the two grounds now raised 

on appeal, the trial court entered a final judgment in the insureds’ favor. 

The insurer gave notice of appeal.

Appellate Analysis

“A trial court’s decision to admit evidence, including a decision to admit 

allegedly new or surprise testimony, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, 

as limited by the rules of evidence.” Gurin Gold, LLC v. Dixon, 277 So. 3d 

600, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

The insurer argues the trial court erred by allowing the insureds to call 

their attorney’s paralegal to testify that he sent the email containing the

proof of loss and loss repair estimate required by the insurance policy. 

More specifically, the insurer claims it was surprised and therefore 

prejudiced by the paralegal’s testimony, because the paralegal and the 
4

documents about which he testified were not identified on the insureds’ 

witness and exhibit lists in compliance with the order setting trial. The 

insurer seeks a new trial on appeal.

Applicable Legal Principles

To avoid trial by ambush and promote the “spirit” of the Florida Rules 

of Civil Procedure regarding discovery, our supreme court in Binger held 

that “a pretrial order directing the parties to exchange the names of 

witnesses requires a listing or notification of all witnesses that the parties 

reasonably foresee will be called to testify, whether for substantive, 

corroborative, impeachment or rebuttal purposes.” 401 So. 2d at 1313. 

The court additionally held that “a trial court can properly exclude the 

testimony of a witness whose name has not been disclosed in accordance 

with a pretrial order.” Id. The supreme court “vest[ed] in the trial judge 

the interpretation and enforcement of any pretrial order mandating 

witness disclosure, and limit[ed] reviewing courts to reversals only in cases 

of a clear showing of abuse prejudicial to the affected party.” Id. In other 

words, the supreme court made clear the trial court has the discretion to 

interpret and enforce its pretrial orders; however, trial by ambush is not 

permitted.

In assessing whether an undisclosed witness should be permitted to 

testify at trial, the focus is on the potential prejudice to the objecting party. 

Gurin Gold, 277 So. 3d at 603 (citing Binger, 401 So. 2d at 1314). The 

standard for prejudice is “surprise in fact.” Id.

“Binger provides the standard a court must follow when deciding 

whether to exclude the testimony of witnesses who were not disclosed 

according to a pretrial order.” Fritz v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 363 

So. 3d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Regarding the discretion given to 

the trial court to admit or deny testimony from an undisclosed witness, 

the supreme court said:

The discretion to do so must not be exercised blindly, however, 

and should be guided largely by a determination as to whether 

use of the undisclosed witness will prejudice the objecting 

party. Prejudice in this sense refers to the surprise in fact of 

the objecting party, and it is not dependent on the adverse 

nature of the testimony. Other factors which may enter into 

the trial court’s exercise of discretion are: (i) the objecting 

party’s ability to cure the prejudice or, similarly, his 

independent knowledge of the existence of the witness; (ii) the 

calling party’s possible intentional, or bad faith, 
5

noncompliance with the pretrial order; and (iii) the possible 

disruption of the orderly and efficient trial of the case (or other 

cases).

Binger, 401 So. 2d at 1314 (footnotes omitted). The listed prejudice factors 

relevant to this appeal are the insurer’s ability to cure the prejudice and 

the insurer’s independent knowledge of the existence of the witness.

In applying Binger, this Court has explained:

Once the trial starts the lawyers are engaged in the unfolding 

of the evidence they have already collected. That is why there 

are discovery cutoffs. All the discovery rules and the extensive 

efforts of parties to discover the other party’s case would be 

for naught if one side were able to wait until after the trial 

started to establish key pieces of evidence . . . . 

Menard v. Univ. Radiation Oncology Assocs., LLP, 976 So. 2d 69, 72 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2008) (citation omitted); Krysiak v. Dawson, 301 So. 3d 259, 264 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Thus, the principles of Binger apply not only to the 

listing of witnesses, but also changes to expert testimony and listing of 

exhibits. Krysiak, 301 So. 3d at 265 (citing Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Clark, 

676 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Colonnell v. Mitchels, 317 So. 2d 

799, 800-01 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)). “As such, it is incumbent upon the trial 

court to analyze the[] Binger factors before exercising its discretion to 

admit or exclude late-disclosed exhibits or witness testimony.” Montero v. 

Corzo, 320 So. 3d 976, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

“[F]ailure to disclose the subject of witness testimony and documents 

that will be introduced into evidence in violation of discovery rules and 

court orders amounts to trial by ambush [and is] another way of saying a 

denial of due process.” J.S.L. Constr. Co. v. Levy, 994 So. 2d 394, 399–

400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citation omitted); see also Reive v. Deutsche Bank 

Nat’l Tr. Co., 190 So. 3d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (same). Moreover, mere 

reference to “any and all necessary” is insufficient for appropriate 

disclosure. Binger, 401 So. 2d 1313; Montero, 320 So. 3d at 979, n.9.
6 

Application of Legal Principles to This Case 

The insurer argues it suffered unfair prejudice from the paralegal’s 

surprise testimony because the insurer had not seen the paralegal’s email 

or known that the paralegal was going to be called to testify, and the 

insurer had no ability to cure the prejudice. The insurer contends the 

paralegal’s testimony was powerful corroboration that a sworn proof of loss 

had been sent on this claim. The insurer further argues the insureds 

should have anticipated their need for the paralegal’s rebuttal testimony 

and therefore should have listed him as a rebuttal witness. Additionally, 

the insurer argues unfair prejudice from surprise because the April 3, 

2019 email was not disclosed as a trial exhibit. 

The trial court, prior to allowing the paralegal to testify, noted the 

insureds had presented no admissible evidence that the sworn proof of 

loss and loss repair estimate were sent to the insurer. The insureds’ 

counsel agreed. 

The jury was tasked with determining whether the insureds failed to 

provide a sworn proof of loss. Thus, the question of whether the sworn 

proof of loss was sent to the insurer was included as a verdict form

interrogatory. 

We agree that allowing the paralegal to testify prejudiced the insurer as 

defined by Binger. When evaluating whether a party is surprised in fact, 

the Binger court looked to whether the identity of witness was known and 

then to whether the substance of the testimony was known. 401 So. 2d 

at 1314 (evaluating whether the objecting party “knew, of course, who he 

was and what he would say” (emphasis added)). 

The insureds had not listed the paralegal as a witness as required by

the order setting trial, and we conclude from our review of the trial 

transcript that neither party knew in advance that he would be testifying 

at trial. Thus, the identity of the paralegal as a witness was a surprise in 

fact to the insurer. Indeed, the insureds’ attorney admitted that the 

paralegal’s testimony “was unexpected” and was in rebuttal2 to the 

testimony of the insurer’s corporate representative. 

2 As noted earlier, and as discussed in Binger, the parties are required to list “all 

witnesses that the parties reasonably foresee will be called to testify, whether for 

substantive, corroborative, impeachment or rebuttal purposes.” 401 So. 2d at 

1313 (emphasis added).
7 

The substance of the paralegal’s testimony (i.e., the transmission of the 

email to the desk adjuster attaching the proof of loss and loss repair 

estimate) was also a surprise and prejudiced the insurer. As the insurer’s 

counsel argued at trial, the insurer had never seen the email prior to trial, 

and it had not been provided in discovery. If the email had been turned 

over in discovery, the insurer would have been able to address the email 

at trial.3

Apart from the paralegal’s testimony, the insureds presented no 

evidence that they had sent the proof of loss and loss repair estimate, or

that the paralegal’s April 3, 2019 email was sent or received. The insurer’s 

corporate representative testified the email containing the proof of loss and 

loss repair estimate was not received because the email was not in the 

claims file. The representative further testified that if the insurer had 

received an email containing the proof of loss, the insurer would have sent 

a response letter, which would also be in the claims file but was not. 

Notably, the paralegal affirmatively testified he did not receive a response 

to his email. 

The ability of the objecting party to cure is evaluated at the time of the 

surprise testimony. See, e.g., Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. J.B. by & 

through Spivak, 675 So. 2d 241, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“HRS had no 

opportunity to obtain information or expert opinion to rebut the testimony 

of the witness and thereby cure the prejudice.”). Presented with new 

evidence and testimony mid-trial, the insurer had no ability to cure. The 

insurer did not receive a copy of the email prior to trial. During trial, while 

the insureds’ counsel may have shown a printed copy of the email to the 

insurer’s corporate representative during his testimony, the email was not 

admitted into evidence. The insurer’s counsel did not receive a copy of the 

email until the day after the insurer’s objection to the paralegal’s testimony

and directly before the paralegal was to testify. It does not appear the 

insurer ever received a complete electronic copy of the email. Thus, the 

insurer was prejudiced because it was unable to examine the email to 

confirm its validity, much less locate an opposing witness prior to the 

paralegal’s testimony. 

Conclusion 

Because the insurer was prejudiced—surprised in fact—by the identity 

of the paralegal as a witness and the substance of his testimony, without 

the ability to cure, and the prejudice was the result of the insureds’ 

3 We note that although the insurer apparently received a printed copy of the 

email mid-trial, the appellate record does not contain a copy of the email.
8

actions, the trial court’s decision permitting the paralegal to testify was 

harmful error. Thus, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.