NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

SAMUEL H. BARLOW, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
  …y and its attorneys. Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1956); Florida Power & Light Company v. Lineburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Fogarty v. Brothers Transfer Company v. Perkins, 250 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); Grand Union v. Patrick, 247 So. 2d 474, 475 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Rule 1.280(b)(2), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that “only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of his…
• Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
  …nt or defense of the claim if and when it materialized. As such, these several reports were privileged and not subject to discovery. Vann v. State, Fla. 1956, 85 So. 2d 133 and cases cited therein. See also Grand Union Co. v. Patrick, Fla. App.1971, 247 So. 2d 474. Petitioners contend vigorously that since the hospital routinely required an “incident report” to be made and submitted by its personnel whenever any untoward event occurred in regard to patient care, such “incident report” became a part of the ho…
• Surette v. Galiardo, 323 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
  …if the policy requires the company to defend him through its attorney, and the communication is intended for the information or assistance of the attorney in so defending him.’ ” (Italics added). See also Grand Union Co. v. Patrick, Fla. App.1971, 247 So. 2d 474. The record does not reflect that the incident report in question was a report by an insured to its insurer within the contemplation of the aforementioned authorities. Since the rules of discovery permit a party to secure the production of documents…