ERNESTO TUAZON, PETITIONER,
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., 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.
A Jones Act plaintiff sought certiorari review of an order disqualifying his counsel based on the attorney's prior work as a claims adjuster for the cruise line defendant, which gave him access to confidential information about similar seamen's claims. The court affirmed the disqualification, holding that the attorney's prior access to the defendant's confidential procedures and policies regarding similar maritime injury claims created an impermissible conflict under professional conduct rules.
The attorney must be disqualified. The trial court's disqualification order was justified because the attorney's prior access to the defendant's confidential procedures and policies regarding similar maritime injury claims puts the defendant at an unfair disadvantage, regardless of whether the attorney was functioning as a lawyer when the information was obtained or whether the information relates directly to the current case.
[1] A former adjuster for a cruise line's insurer may be disqualified from representing a plaintiff in a Jones Act action against the cruise line if the adjuster had access t…
[2] Information learned by an individual while acting as a claims adjuster for a party's insurer may be considered confidential information that could disadvantage the party…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Rule 4-1.9(b) (Rules of Professional Conduct) of Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, does not permit the use of information relating to the representation of a client to the disadvantage of a former client.”
Establishes the applicable professional conduct rule governing attorney disqualification based on prior client relationships and confidential information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTuazon brought a Jones Act action against Royal Caribbean Cruises. Tuazon's attorney had previously worked as a claims adjuster for Nautical Services,…
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 Attorney Disqualification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff in a Jones Act action against the Royal Caribbean cruise line seeks certiorari review of an order1 disqualifying his counsel on grounds that he had access to confidential information as to substantially similar matters brought by other seamen while previously acting as an adjuster for the cruise line. In our view, the showing to this effect adduced below fully justified the trial court’s decision. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla.1991); Lackow v. Walter E. Heller & Co. Southeast, 466 So .2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stansbury, 374 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); American Motors Corp. v. Huffstutler, 61 Ohio St.3d 343, 575 N.E. 2d 116 (1991) (prior employment as engineer for car company disqualified later-admitted attorney as expert witness or consultant for plaintiffs in eases involving similar issue).
Certiorari denied.
. The Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel is granted.
Rule 4-1.9(b) (Rules of Professional Conduct) of Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, does not permit the use of information relating to the representation of a client to the disadvantage of a former client.
The affidavits both in support and in opposition to the motion point out the fact that Plaintiff’s attorney was functioning as an adjuster, not as an attorney (although during the period in question he became a member of the bar) and that this case was not at all involved in the duties of the Plaintiff’s attorney while he was an adjuster. At first blush, it would appear that for those reasons disqualification would not be warranted or appropriate. The cause for concern is the fact that Plaintiff's attorney worked as a claims adjuster for Nautical Services, Inc., the local claims agent for the Defendant’s insurer. He adjusted, evaluated, investigated and handled claims on behalf of the Defendant, some of which claims were of the type involved in this case. Plaintiff’s attorney (in his capacity as adjuster) was and (in his capacity as attorney) is privy to the confidential procedures and policies of the Defendant.
This falls squarely within the proscription of the rule. To suggest that because Plaintiff's attorney was not functioning as a lawyer when the confidential information was learned, or that the confidential information does not relate directly to this case, begs the issue.
The issue is, to paraphrase the rule, does the information (not generally known) put the Defendant at an unfair disadvantage? This court finds that it does.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carnival Corp. v. Beverly, 744 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…the difficulties of distinguishing conscientious activism from ill-motivated aggression.” Id. . Respondent’s additional reliance on Double T Corp. v. Jalis Dev., Inc., 682 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) and Tuazon v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 641 So. 2d 417 (Fla. [*496] 3d DCA 1994), as authority for the trial court's general power to disqualify counsel, is misplaced. Both of these cases are distinguishable from the instant appeal because, in both cases, the trial court disqualified an attorney, not fo…1 / 2
-
Carnival Corp. and/or Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Romero, 710 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…i granted and order denying motion to disqualify counsel quashed); Arthur v. Gibson, 654 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (appeal of order denying disqualification of counsel treated as certiora-ri and denied); Tuazon v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Inc., 641 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (certiorari review of order disqualifying attorney denied, as disqualification based on attorney’s access to opponent’s confidential information was justified). In Arthur v. Gibson, this court held that a trial court can disqualif…
-
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Buenaagua, 685 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…iorari seeking to quash four trial court orders denying RCCL’s motions to disqualify plaintiffs’ attorneys in four unrelated cases. We consolidated the cases for review purposes.1 Contrary to RCCL’s position, Tuazon v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 641 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), is not dispositive of the issues raised in the petitions. RCCL has not demonstrated a departure from the essential requirements of law; therefore, we deny certio-rari. Luis A. Perez was employed by Nautical Services, Inc., as an…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1991)
- Sears v. Stansbury, 374 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Stevie Leroy Lark v. State, 466 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)