WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, D/B/A WALT DISNEY WORLD, PETITIONER,
v.
KATHLEEN MARIE COTTO AND SALVADORE COTTO, JR., AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF NICHOLE KATHLEEN COTTO, A MINOR DECEASED, AND KATHLEEN MARIE COTTO AND SALVADOR COTTO, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, RESPONDENTS
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.
The court held that statements taken by claims representatives in the ordinary course of business are protected work product, even if taken soon after an incident.
Following a fatal accident at Walt Disney World, claims representatives took statements from witnesses. The trial court ordered production of these st…
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 Ordinary Course Of Business cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
This case is before us on a petition for writ of certiorari by Walt Disney World Co., defendant below, to review a discovery order requiring the production of certain statements which are claimed to be “work product” under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b). We grant the petition and quash the lower court’s order. This action arose from the death of Nicole Kathleen Cotto, a minor, which occurred on the premises of Walt Disney World as a result of injuries sustained when a menu sign fell on her. Soon after the accident, three claims representatives, employed in the claims division of the Walt Disney World legal department, took the statements of persons who were in the area where the incident took place.
The depositions of these claims representatives were taken and testimony was elicited that these witness statements were taken in the ordinary course of the claim department’s business. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of the statements, which was granted by the trial court. The lower court gave as the basis for its ruling that “based on deposition testimony, said statements were preliminary statements taken in the ordinary course of business and not for litigation/trial purposes.”
We must disagree with the lower court’s order as we find that it directly conflicts with our holding in Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1984).
QUASHED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruhland v. Gibeault, 495 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…materials indicated above, without prejudice to the right of the respondents to make the showing required by Rule 1.280(b)(2), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. QUASHED. 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).…
-
W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Neva Prods., Inc., 490 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…he contents of an insurer’s accident investigation file constituted work product even though it was prepared prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Accord Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1952); Walt Disney World Co. v. Cotto, 462 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gonyea, 455 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); New Life Acres, Inc. v. Strickland, 436 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), petition for…
Authorities Cited
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)