“Carriage Hills Condominium, Inc., v. JBH Roofing & Construction, Inc., 38 Fl. L. Weekly D643a, Case No. 4D11-2251, filed on March 20, 2013. Summary judgment in favor of roofing contractor for breach of a “full scope contingency contract” (in which payments were to be approved and paid by insurer), based soled on the deposition of the defendant’s corporate representative, was reversed due to the improper use of Rule 1.310(b)(6) regarding notice of deposing a corporation representative, and the trial court’s improper striking of opposing affidavits as contradicting that deposition. This opinion details the correct use of the rule, and the strict adherence required to bind the corporate entity. In this case, the notice of deposition was not compliant with the rule because it failed to cite to the rule and required production of “the person with the most knowledge,” while failing to specify the issues to be addressed rather than the “over broad” reference to the general allegation pled; in addition, the deposition was not properly conducted due to the corporate representative’s statements of personal beliefs and opinions that exceeded the scope of the deposition notice. This case also set forth four (4) criteria a trial court must find before striking testimony on the basis that it repudiates or contradicts that that given by a corporate representative pursuant to this rule.” (from RPPTL Construction Regulation Subcommittee).