ELIZABETH ANN VILORD, AND HER HUSBAND, CHARLES VILORD, PETITIONERS,
v.
WILLIAM JENKINS, M.D., 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 medical malpractice plaintiff sought discovery of the defendant doctor's liability insurance information to join the insurer as a party. The trial court denied discovery, and the appellate court granted certiorari, holding that plaintiffs have a right to discover insurance carrier identity in medical malpractice cases.
Plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions have a right to discover the identity of the defendant doctor's malpractice liability insurance carrier. This right is implied by the well-established principle that a plaintiff has the right to join the liability carrier as a party in the action, which requires knowing the carrier's identity.
[1] In medical malpractice actions, a plaintiff has the right to discover the identity of the defendant doctor's malpractice liability insurance carrier.
[2] Knowledge of a defendant's malpractice liability insurance is discoverable as it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is relevant to settlement neg…
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“a plaintiff in such an action against a doctor has a right to join the malpractice liability carrier of the doctor. This necessarily implies, of course, the right to discover the identity of such carrier so that, in one action, all interested parties may be required to "lay their cards on the table" in discovery proceedings, settlement negotiations and pretrial hearings.”
Establishes the fundamental right to discover insurance carrier identity as necessarily implied by the right to join the carrier as a party.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Elizabeth Ann Vilord and Charles Vilord filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. William Jenkins. During discovery, plaintiffs sought…
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 Common Law Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
In this pending medical malpractice action,1 plaintiff-petitioners sought to discover certain information relating to medical malpractice liability insurance owned by the defendant doctor. Further, they represented that knowledge of such information was exclusively possessed by the defendant. Notwithstanding, the trial court sustained objections to plaintiff’s discovery efforts apparently on the grounds that the information sought was irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Petitioners now seek common law certiorari to review the action of the trial court aforesaid.
At the outset, we observe that there can no longer be any doubt that the principles announced in Shingleton v. Bussey2 are applicable in medical malpractice actions.3 That is to say, a plaintiff in such an action against a doctor has a right to join the malpractice liability carrier of the doctor. This necessarily implies, of course, the right to discover the identity of such carrier so that, in one action, all interested parties may be required to “lay their cards on the table” in discovery proceedings, settlement negotiations and pretrial hearings.4 Patently, the result of the trial court’s order herein is to materially and irreparably frustrate this right. Moreover, such order was a material departure from the essential requirements of the now established law in the premises.5 We think common law cer-tiorari is therefore appropriate to grant relief.
*69Accordingly, certiorari is granted, the order under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Certiorari granted.
HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Everhart v. Drake Mgmt., Inc., 627 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1980)…. 1970). See, e. g., Amsler v. American Home Assurance Co., 348 So. 2d 68 (Fla. App. 1977) (professional insurer of attorney); School Board of Broward County v. Surette, 281 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1973) [*690] (insurer of school board); Vilord v. Jenkins, 240 So. 2d 68 (Fla. App. 1970) (medical malpractice actions); Maxwell v. Southern American Fire Insurance Co., 235 So. 2d 768 (Fla. App. 1970) (contract provisions of medical payment coverage portion of homeowner’s insurance policy); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.…
Authorities Cited
- Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969)
- Gulf Stream Motors, Inc. v. Christina Cook & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969)
- Beta ETA House Corp. v. Gregory, 237 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1970)
- Elizabeth Ann Vilord and her husband v. William Jenkins, M.D., 226 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Duran v. McPHERSON, 233 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Orefice v. Albert, 239 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Durrett v. Henderson S. Davidson, 239 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Hannon v. Entell, 233 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Beckerman v. Magda Ujfalusy, 231 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- State v. Hyers, 236 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)