Both parties raise several issues on appeal and cross-appeal, however we write only to address: (1) RJR's argument that the Surgeon General's Reports ("the Reports") were erroneously admitted into evidence and improperly used to establish addiction-causation and to bolster expert opinions; and (2) Plaintiffs' argument that, in the event of reversal, they should be permitted to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages on their negligence and strict liability claims.In Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari , 228 So.3d 115, 120–30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), we recently held that the very same Reports constitute hearsay, are inadmissible as either public records or adoptive admissions, and may not be used to impermissibly bolster the opinions of testifying experts. Because the Reports were relied on at every major stage of the trial and used "to unfairly buttress [the plaintiff's] factual contentions ... using the imprimatur of the Surgeon General of the United States," we also held that the plaintiff could not meet her burden of showing that the error was harmless.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). Plaintiffs' citation of Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari, 228 So. 3d 115, 123 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017), does not help their position. Pollari found that Surgeon General reports satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(A)(iii) as records of factual findings from authorized investigations, but excluded the reports because Florida law did not follow the federal rule.

A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari, 228 So.3d 115, 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). However, a de novo standard of review applies to whether evidence falls within the statutory definition of hearsay or is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule.

The legal question of whether evidence is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed de novo. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari , 228 So. 3d 115, 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari , 228 So. 3d 115, 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). "Whether the trial court has complied with the guarantees of due process is subject to de novo review." VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase Assocs., LLC , 68 So. 3d 997, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted).

And the hearsay statement that an image with a particular hash value is child exploitative is not admissible simply because it is relied upon by forensic technicians to identify images of child pornography for law enforcement in investigations. See Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari, 228 So. 3d 115, 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("Expert witnesses may properly rely upon hearsay in arriving at an opinion so long as 'the hearsay is of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.' " (quoting Vega v. State Farm Mut. Auto., 45 So. 3d 43, 45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) ); see also § 90.704.

• Lima v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2017 WL 2306252 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct., April 20, 2017) —$3 million to estate consisting of spouse and four adult children .• Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari, 228 So.3d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) —$3 million but reversed due to improper introduction of evidence by plaintiff .• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 211 So.3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) —$3.5 million .

The defendants allege in their first issue that the Surgeon General's Reports ("the Reports") were erroneously admitted into evidence and improperly used to bolster expert opinions. As we recently concluded in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari, No. 4D16–334, 228 So.3d 115, 2017 WL 3730347 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 30, 2017), the Reports are hearsay that are inadmissible as public records or adoptive admissions and may not be used to bolster the opinions of testifying experts. The admission and use of the Reports in the instant case was likewise erroneous.