PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Susan Priest, appeals an order granting Appellees, Summer L. Velisek, motion for a new trial in the underlying negligence action. The trial court based the order granting a new trial on a combination of two issues: Appellants cross-examination of Appellees expert witness about his financial bias (where the expert was asked if he previously testified to earning two million dollars annually from all defendants) and Appellees unsolicited and unexpected mentioning of insurance while she testified during Appellants case-in-chief. The court found it erred in allowing the cross-examination of Appellees expert and that Appellees mention of insurance was prejudicial. Appellant argues that neither ground supports the grant of a new trial. We agree.
In granting a new trial, the trial court ruled that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 prohibited Appellants counsel from questioning Appellees expert concerning his total annual income from all defendants, and that it should have applied this rule to bar any inquiry into the experts total annual income on cross-examination. However, rule 1.280 is a rule pertaining to discovery-not evidence. Therefore, we find that the trial court erroneously relied upon this procedural rule in granting a new trial in Appellees favor.
Likewise, the trial court erred when it granted a new trial based upon Appellees own unexpected and unsolicited statement in front of the jury regarding her insurance. We find this argument lacks merit because at a minimum, any error was expressly waived by Appellees counsel.
Therefore, we reverse the trial courts order granting a new trial and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict and judgment.
REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.
EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., and ROGERS, S.G., Associate Judge, concur.
We do not reach any other arguments regarding the propriety of questioning an expert in this fashion as this is the only argument preserved below and properly before us on appeal.
As a result of the explicit waiver found in the record, we need not decide if Appellees own statement is invited error.