In Department of Transportation v. Armadillo Partners, Inc. (Armadillo II), the Florida Supreme Court held that evidence of costs to cure in eminent domain actions, while admissible to establish just compensation, should not be a component of a property owner’s compensation and are not damages but should be considered merely in evaluating the effect of the taking on the remainder property’s market value. In doing so, the Court found that costs to cure are admissible only if tied to the cure’s effect on the remainder’s fair market value. In focusing on the proof offered by the condemnor’s appraisal expert in the case, the Court also held that an expert’s challenged method of evaluation “should ordinarily be treated as an issue of weight, not admissibility.” The Court’s holding applies even when the expert’s opinion contravenes the law of severance damages, which provides that full compensation for a taking should include both ‘“the value of the portion being appropriated and any damage to the remainder caused by the taking.’”
In deciding Armadillo II, the Court rejected years of precedent that addressed the effect of proposed cures on areas outside of the area taken. More important, because Armadillo II concerns expert testimony in general, the decision may encourage experts to ignore established law because doing so affects only the weight, as opposed to the admissibility, of their testimony. By rejecting the long-standing and broadly applicable rule that permits trial courts to exclude expert testimony when it contravenes established law, Armadillo II may mislead juries and lead to erroneous and inequitable jury verdicts.