42 Fla. L. Weekly D1168a
219 So. 3d 862
Insurance — Evidence — No error in entering store receipts and photocopies of cancelled checks — Store receipts which have distinctive logos and are identified by the purchaser as the receipts for the actual items purchased at the store by the purchaser are sufficiently authenticated and admissible to corroborate testimony of the purchaser regarding the purchase — Photocopies of cancelled checks are admissible as duplicate of the original — Moreover, any error in admitting documentary evidence was harmless where evidence was cumulative to precise facts of purchases to which purchasers testified
TOWER HILL PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. JESUS CABRERA, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D16-220. May 24, 2017. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara McCarthy and Cynthia G. Imperato, Judges; L.T. Case No. CACE14-007966 (21). Counsel: Scot E. Samis and Ashley R. Kellgren of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, St. Petersburg, for appellant. Paul B. Feltman of Alvarez, Carbonell, Feltman & DaSilva, PL, Coral Gables, for appellee.
(PER CURIAM.) The appellant challenges a final judgment, contending that the court erred in admitting store receipts and photocopies of checks into evidence. We affirm, applying the tipsy coachman doctrine.1 Where store receipts have distinctive logos and are identified by the purchaser as the receipts of the actual items purchased at the store by the purchaser, they are sufficiently authenticated and admissible to corroborate the testimony of the purchaser regarding the purchase. See Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678, 700 (Fla. 2013). Photocopies of cancelled checks are admissible as a duplicate of the original. See § 90.953, Fla. Stat. (2015); Pa. Blue Shield v. Wolfe, 575 So. 2d 1361, 1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. Moreover, as the documentary evidence was cumulative to the precise facts of the purchases to which the appellee and his wife, the purchasers, testified, any error in the admission of the evidence was harmless. Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251, 1256 (Fla. 2014).
Affirmed. (WARNER, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644-45 (Fla. 1999) (holding that even though a trial court’s ruling is based on improper reasoning, the ruling will be upheld if there is any theory or principle of law in the record which would support the ruling).
