SHAWMUT VAN LINES, INC., AND HOME FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, PETITIONERS,
v.
BRETT SMALL, 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 court held that an adjuster's file is protected work product, but a party cannot refuse to answer deposition questions solely based on occupation.
An insurance company sought certiorari to reverse an order compelling its adjuster to produce an investigation file and testify. The trial court had l…
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
The petitioner-insurance company is being sued upon an insurance policy. Its petition for certiorari in this Court seeks reversal of an order of the circuit court which granted plaintiff-respondent’s motion to compel discovery from an adjuster allegedly employed by the insurance company. The language of the order is as follows: “C. A. Craig is hereby required to conform to and abide by the terms of the subpoena heretofore served upon him and testify in response thereto and to present his file for a reasonable examination and reproduction if required.”
It has previously been determined that 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. Ford Motor Co. v. Havee, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 572. A review of the record submitted to us does not substantiate the application of the exception to the general rule to the file of the investigator. Therefore, that portion of the order which directs the adjuster to turn over the file for examination and reproduction is quashed.
The order which the petition seeks to review was not limited to the matter of the investigator’s file. Plaintiff was prevented from asking the witness, Craig, any questions on deposition except his name and occupation. Insurance adjusters, however, are not by occupation precluded from discovery; and if upon the remand of this cause particular questions are asked which are objectionable because they invade the work product of this defendant, the defendant may object to the questions. The trial court will then be able to determine from such evidence as is before it whether the *558adjuster is the agent of the defendant and whether the answers sought will invade the defendant’s privilege.
Plaintiff has alleged a course of dealing with the insurance adjuster extending over a considerable length of time prior to the filing of suit. He has urged thereupon that the matters and things he wishes to inquire into may come within an exception to the rule against disclosure of work product in that they concern dealings between himself and the insurance company. We do not have a sufficient record to make this determination, nor do we find that the trial judge had such information.
Upon remand the witness, C. A. Craig, will he required to report for examination as noticed by the plaintiff and with the file which has been subpoenaed. Thereafter the cause should proceed with objections to specific questions, if necessary, and certification to the trial judge of those questions to which the plaintiff demands an answer. The trial court can then decide which questions must he answered. See Rule 1.31(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F. S.A.1
The order on which certiorari is herein granted contains a provision granting plaintiff’s motion to assess reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order and deferring the award of said costs until the conclusion of the proceedings. With this provision we are in entire accord. Even though certiorari has been granted upon one portion of the order, it is apparent that the motion to compel the witness to answer questions on oral deposition was necessary if the plaintiff were not to have to abandon his discovery deposition. This situation' was occasioned by what amounted to a blanket objection by defendant’s counsel to any testimony from the witness other than his name and occupation. We mention this factor so that the granting of this petition and the subsequent quashal of a portion of the order reviewed may not be considered determinative of the costs of the proceeding in the trial court.
For the above reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the order on motion to compel the witness to answer oral interrogatories on.deposition is quashed as to that portion which requires the witness to present his file for examination and reproduction. The order is affirmed in all other particulars.
Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assocs., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ts and materials prepared by a party’s investigator or insurer only if these were prepared in contemplation of litigation. See Alachua General Hospital, Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small, 148 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Mere likelihood of litigation does not satisfy this qualification. Because the applicable rule, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2), closely resembles Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), we look to federal case law…
-
The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Fields, 262 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…7 So. 2d 51; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons (Fla.1952) 61 So. 2d 426; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Allen (Fla.1949) 40 So. 2d 115. . Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette (Fla.1970) 236 So. 2d 108; Shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small (Fla.App.1963) 148 So. 2d 556; Goldstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (Fla.App.1960) 118 So. 2d 253; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, supra note 1; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Allen, supra note 1. .See authorities cited supra note 2. . Ford Motor Company v…
-
Motor Union (Aviation) Orion Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Franklyn Levenson, 153 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…not be deposed unless such information is not obtainable elsewhere, or other good cause is shown. See Ford Motor Company v. Havee, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 572, and authorities cited there. The case of Shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small, Fla.App.1963, 148 So. 2d 556, relied on by the appellant is distinguishable. There the court recognized that by reason of the length and nature of the employment there could be areas for examination of the employed adjuster outside of privileged work product and allowed discove…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Havee, 123 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)