to section 90.408, such evidence is admissible for other purposes, such as to prove the bias or prejudice of a witness. See Bankers Trust Co. v. Basciano, 960 So.2d 773, 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“If the evidence is offered for another purpose, the evidence is not barred by section 90.408 and will be admissible if it is relevant to prove a material fact or issue, subject to section 90.403.”); Wolowitz v. Thoroughbred Motors, Inc., 765 So.2d 920, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“Section 90.408 excludes evidence of settlement negotiations only when the evidence is offered to prove liability, the absence of liability, or value. Thus, evidence of settlement negotiations is admissible to establish other relevant facts.”); see also Agan v. Katzman & Korr, P.A., 328 F.Supp.2d 1363 (S.D.Fla.2004) (<HOLDING>). “The concept of limited admissibility applies
holding repeated claims by attorney to client that documents were forthcoming constituted misrepresentations in violation of rule 3284c when the documents were not actually ready holding that settlement documents were admissible under both section 90408 and federal rule of evidence 408 because the documents were offered not to establish liability but to establish violation of consumer credit laws holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable holding that the appellant could not complain that an affidavit and mediated settlement agreement were not in evidence even though those documents were not formally offered and admitted holding that federal rule of evidence 408 authorizes the district court to exclude settlement letters