STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN CHARLES BARCZAK, 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.
State Farm's petition for certiorari is granted and the order requiring production of its file is quashed pending resolution of the underlying appeal, to avoid prejudicing the defendants if the judgment is reversed.
An order requiring production of an insurer's file in a supplementary proceeding must be deferred until after disposition of the pending appeal in the underlying damage action to avoid prejudicing the defendants if reversal and new trial are ordered.
[1] An order requiring production of documents in a supplementary proceeding may be deferred pending resolution of a pending appeal in the underlying action when enforcement…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarczak obtained judgment against defendants and their insurer State Farm in a personal injury action. After judgment, Barczak filed a supplementary p…
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 Personal Injury Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
CARROLL, Judge.
In an action for damages for personal injuries the respondent John Charles Bar-czak obtained judgment against certain defendants and their insurer State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the petitioner here. An appeal by the defendants from the judgment is pending before this court.
In a proceeding filed subsequent to the judgment by the respondent Barczak and others against State Farm incident to the matter, a motion by Barczak was granted requiring State Farm to produce its file relating to the cause, being matter which it is conceded would not have been subject to a discovery order to produce in the main case, but which it appears would be proper to be required to be produced for purposes of the supplementary action or proceeding.
However, the petitioner State Farm contends, and we agree, that to require such production by it before disposition of the appeal from the damage action judgment would be prejudicial to the petitioner and the other defendants in the main action in event the pending appeal should result in reversal of the judgment and an order for a new trial.
In such circumstances we hold the interest of justice will best be served by defer ring the order to produce until after the pending appeal from the judgment is decided, and for the order to produce then to be enforced, or otherwise disposed of, as may appear proper based on the outcome of the pending appeal. To that extent, and to serve that purpose, certiorari is granted and the order in question is quashed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lauda v. H. F. Mason Equip. Corp., 407 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…likely be controlled by our decision on appeal. See Clarke v. Knight, 84 Fla. 485, 94 So. 671 (1922). And see Gulf Theatres, Inc. v. State ex rel. Ferguson, 133 Fla. 634, 182 So. 842 (1938); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Barczak, 296 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); United States v. Thorp, 655 F. 2d 997 (9th Cir.1981). . In Fears v. Lunsford, 314 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1975), the Florida Supreme Court held that a voluntary dismissal could be entered even after the trial court had announced its int…
-
Koken v. Am. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 330 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…igation, should be produced. Stone v. Travelers Insurance Company, Fla.App.1976, 326 So. 2d 241. See also Boston Old Colony Insurance Company v. Gutierrez, Fla.App.1976, 325 So-.2d 416; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Barczak, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 493; Bell v. Commercial Insurance Co. of Newark, N. J., 280 F. 2d 514 (3rd Cir. 1960) and Annot., 22 A.L.R.2d 659 (1952). Accordingly, the protective order- herein appealed is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings n…