BEST POOL & SPA SERVICE CO., INC., AND STEVEN KASSOVER, PETITIONERS,
v.
THEODORA ROMANIK, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal quashed a deposition order requiring Kassover to answer questions about whether he had certified to the county that his pool maintenance business had liability insurance when it allegedly did not, finding that answering could violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by exposing him to criminal liability under Florida's false public records statute.
The court held that requiring Kassover to answer the questions does violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which applies not only to criminal matters but also to administrative proceedings such as licensing. The order requiring him to answer was therefore quashed.
[1] A party may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in administrative proceedings, including those related to licensing.
[2] The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to questions that could lead to penalties or criminal charges under statutes prohibiting false public rec…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We agree that requiring Kassover to answer these questions does violate his right against self-incrimination, which applies not only to criminal matters but also administrative proceedings such as licensing.”
Establishes that the Fifth Amendment privilege extends to administrative licensing proceedings, not just criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent sued Best Pool & Spa Service Co. and its president Steven Kassover for negligence and breach of contract, alleging they abandoned pool repa…
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 Privilege Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
We grant certiorari and quash an order requiring petitioner Kassover to answer questions which would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Respondent plaintiff sued petitioners for damages for negligence and breach of contract, alleging that they abandoned repair work on her pool, without refilling the pool, resulting in damage when the pool rose because of a high surrounding water level. Petitioner Kassover is the president of Best Pool, and the complaint alleged that he had personally negligently performed the work resulting in the damage.
Plaintiff propounded interrogatories asking defendants whether there was insurance coverage for these damages, and defendants responded that there was no insurance applicable to the incident. Plaintiff then requested production of all policies of liability insurance in effect as of certain dates, and defendants responded that there were none.
Broward County has an ordinance requiring “public liability and property damage insurance for the safety and welfare of the public” as a condition for issuing a license for pool maintenance contractors. Plaintiff asked Kassover questions at his deposition about his certifying to the county, in his application for a license, that there was liability insurance. Kassover refused to answer on the ground of self-incrimination. Plaintiff had obtained the county’s file and claimed relevancy because Kassover had certified under oath to the county that Best Pool did have liability insurance coverage when plaintiff’s pool was damaged. The lower court ordered Kassover to answer the questions which resulted in this petition for certiorari.
Kassover argues that if he has to answer these questions regarding having certified that he had insurance, it could lead to county-imposed penalties or criminal charges pursuant to section 831.01, Florida Statutes (1991), which makes it a crime to make false public records, certificates, etc. We agree that requiring Kass-over to answer these questions does violate his right against self-incrimination, which applies not only to criminal matters but also administrative proceedings such as licensing. State ex rel. Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So. 2d 487 (Fla.1973).
We therefore grant certiorari and quash the order insofar as it requires answers which could violate Kassover’s right against self-incrimination.
HERSEY, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maylin Aragon-Cannet v. Fla. Int'l Univ. (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2014)
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. J. Bruce Vining v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 281 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1973)