The Florida Supreme Court didn't seem quite ready Tuesday to officially adopt the Daubert evidence standard five years after the state Legislature wrote the rule change into law.

During oral argument in DeLisle v. Crane, the court's more conservative justices questioned whether plaintiffs attorneys brought the right case to challenge Daubert, which asks trial judges to ensure admitted scientific evidence is relevant and reliable. The liberal-leaning justices fretted about the standard's potential effect on plaintiffs compared with the Frye test, which asks whether new or novel evidence is based on generally accepted science.

Justices Charles Canady and C. Alan Lawson grilled Miami attorney Jim Ferraro, who sought to reinstate an $8 million asbestos verdict his firm won for Richard DeLisle. The award was overturned in 2016 when the Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach found some of the plaintiff's expert testimony did not meet the Daubert standard.