GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
ATLANTIC HOSPITALITY OF FLORIDA, LLC., RESPONDENT

Fla. 3d DCA | 2011-03-09
No. 3D10-3109
Before WELLS, SALTER, and EMAS, JJ.
57 So. 3d 238 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2011) Caution
Cited by 10 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that a writ of certiorari should be granted to quash discovery orders compelling the deposition of senior officers who lack personal knowledge of the claim and whose deposition would cause irreparable harm.


Headnotes

[1] A writ of certiorari is available to review a discovery order that departs from essential requirements of law and causes irreparable injury not adequately remediable on a…

[2] A party seeking to depose a high-ranking corporate officer must demonstrate that the deposition is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

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

Facts & Procedural History

General Star Indemnity Company, an insurer, sought certiorari to quash discovery orders compelling its president to appear for deposition in a windsto…

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.


Opinion of the Court
SALTER, J.

SALTER, J.

General Star Indemnity Company, a commercial property insurer, seeks a writ of certiorari quashing two discovery orders. Atlantic Hospitality of Florida, LLC, is General Star’s insured and is the respondent. Simply stated, Atlantic Hospitality obtained orders compelling two senior officers1 of General Star to appear for deposition in a windstorm insurance case. General Star filed an affidavit establishing that these senior officers had no role in the investigation or adjustment2 of Atlantic Hospitality’s claims.

Certiorari is available to review a discovery order which departs from essential requirements of law and causes injury that has no adequate remedy in a subsequent appeal. Banc of Am. Inv. Servs. v. Barnett, 997 So.2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). The order departs from essential requirements of law because Atlantic Hospitality has not shown that the president’s deposition is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280.3 See Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So.3d 276, 277 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). General Star has shown that its president is a manager, not an adjuster or other employee with personal knowledge of the factual disputes involved in the lawsuit.

The injury that cannot be remedied in a subsequent, plenary appeal is de*240scribed by General Star’s president in her affidavit:

12. As President and Chief Executive Officer of General Star Management Company, my signature appears on every policy issued by General Star Indemnity Company in the State of Florida as a standard, pre-printed signature on all policies.
13. Because of the size and nature of the insurance business and the number of people insured by General Star, Genesis, and General Re, the insureds and reinsureds of these entities are involved in hundreds of lawsuits throughout the United States. If I were summoned as a deponent to testify in each of those cases, I would not have time to fulfill my duties as an executive officer of Genesis, General Star or General Re, as I could literally be in depositions every single day. It would be extremely disruptive to my responsibilities to any one of these companies and its policyholders if I were to give depositions in cases involving individual insureds, when I was not involved with their claims or policies, as is the case here.
14. I have not participated in the above-captioned litigation, or in the underlying insurance claim, or in the underwriting of the subject policy, and I am filing this affidavit in support of a motion for protective order.

This is an obvious but compelling point. The job of the president of the company is to manage the company, not to fly around the United States participating in depositions about policy-related claim disputes of which the president has no personal knowledge. While the out-of-pocket costs of such an exercise can be calculated and shifted if appropriate at the conclusion of the case (or in a separate sanctions motion), the effect on the company is much more difficult to measure. If all claimants demand and obtain the same right, the chief executive officer manages his or her deposition schedule, not the company.

The case at hand is not complicated. A commercial insured claims a Hurricane Charley windstorm loss occurred in August 2004, and it filed a lawsuit against its insurer in May 2009. Trial and appellate counsel for the insured are too sophisticated and experienced to believe that a pre-printed signature on a standard form policy would subject the Connecticut-based president of the insurer to a deposition, or that receipt (with 40-plus other members of management) of one loss assessment authored by a field-level employee, warrants a deposition of the recipient before the adjuster has been asked about it. Discovery is intended to be part of the “just, speedy, and inexpensive”4 determination of disputes — not a device to get greater attention at an adversary’s headquarters.

Petition for certiorari granted; orders compelling deposition quashed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Miami Dade Coll. v. Del Pino Allen, 2020 WL 5506445 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
  • Univ. OF W. Fla. Bd. OF Trs. v. Habegger, 125 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
    …lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, the order denying the motion for protective order and compelling the discovery of President Bense departed from the essential requirements of law. Cf. Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Atl. Hospitality of Fla., LLC, 57 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (granting certiorari and quashing orders [*327] compelling the deposition of company president where the respondent failed to show that the president’s deposition would be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissib…
  • Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Sewell, 150 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
    …utives and officers have unique or special knowledge of the events in question and that the party seeking the deposition is unable to obtain the information from using a less intrusive means. See Gen. Star Idem. Co. v. Atl. Hospitality of Fla., LLC, 57 So. 3d 238, 239 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (noting that this Court "has not expressly adopted the 'apex doctrine.’ ”); Citigroup Inc. v. Holtsberg, 915 So. 2d 1265, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“[N]o reported Florida appellate court opinion has expressly adopted the…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw