VIRGINIA E. CAVALERE, DAVID T. CAVALERE AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
JOHN RUSSELL GRAHAM, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioners sought certiorari review of a discovery order compelling an insurance company adjuster to answer deposition questions and produce the company's complete claims file. The court granted the petition and quashed the discovery order, holding that work product of an investigator cannot be discovered absent unusual circumstances showing compelling necessity.
The court held that work product of an investigator employed by a party cannot be compelled except in unusual circumstances constituting compelling necessity, and that respondent failed to present evidence showing such compelling necessity. The court further rejected respondent's claim that an exception applied based on bad faith discovery rules, since this was not a bad faith case and the parties had settled.
[1] An investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the work product of his investigation except in unusual circumstances constituting compelling necessity…
[2] A party seeking discovery of an investigator's work product must present evidence showing a compelling necessity for such discovery.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the work product of his investigation except in unusual circumstances constituting compelling necessity for the discovery in order to reach the merits of the cause.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for work product protection in discovery disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGraham, a passenger in a vehicle insured by Allstate, brought a negligence action against the vehicle's owners, the Cavaleres. Allstate answered claim…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Compelling Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
[*429] COBB, Judge.
Petitioners, Virginia E. Cavalere, David T. Cavalere and Allstate Insurance Company, seek a writ of certiorari to review an order of the circuit court which granted respondent John Russell Graham’s motion to compel discovery from an adjuster for petitioner insurance company.1 We grant the petition for certiorari and quash the discovery order. The lower court order compels the adjuster to answer questions propounded to her at a deposition, which were certified to the court following the deponent’s refusal to answer. Additionally, the order requires the production of Allstate’s complete file pertaining to Graham’s claim arising out of the auto accident.
An investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the work product of his investigation except in unusual circumstances constituting compelling necessity for the discovery in order to reach the merits of the cause. Shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small, 148 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). See also Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1952). The respondent has not presented any evidence in the record showing a compelling necessity for discovery. See Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.280(b)(2).
Graham claims that an exception is present based on the line of eases allowing for discovery in actions for bad faith against an insurance company for failure to settle within policy limits. This contention is spurious because this is not a bad faith case. Graham and Allstate had in fact settled the claim. Furthermore, no fiduciary relationship has existed at any time between Graham and Allstate, nor is this a situation wherein there is an implicit assignment of a cause of action by the insured to the third-party plaintiff. See Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of N.Y., 250 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1971); Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 325 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1976).
The lower court’s order requiring discovery departs from the essential requirements of the law. Therefore, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is granted, and the order compelling discovery is quashed.
DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . The initial cause arose from a negligence action brought by Graham for injuries he received in an auto accident while a passenger in the Cavalere vehicle. Allstate (the insurer) answered by claiming accord and satisfaction in that Graham’s claim had been settled. Graham then responded by alleging bad faith in the settlement of the claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward L. Huet and Joan Huet v. Hillary Tromp and Andre Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…employed by a party may not be required to produce the work-product of his or her investigations, except in unusual circumstances constituting compelling necessity for the discovery in order to reach the merits of the cause. See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, a party may waive the work product privilege with respect to matters covered by an investigator’s anticipated testimony when a party elects to present the investigator as a witness. See United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S…
-
NEW Life Acres, Inc. v. Strickland, 436 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…exceptions set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2) to the general rule that the work product of a party is privileged from discovery. See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) and Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law. Therefore, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is granted, and the order compelling discovery is quashed. [*392] PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED. DAUKSC…
-
Ruhland v. Gibeault, 495 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Walt Disney World Co. v. Cotto, 462 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1984); Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 250 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1971)
- Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1952)
- Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 325 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Shawmut van Lines, Inc. v. Small, 148 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)