Springer v. West, 5D00-1944.

Decision Date08 September 2000
Docket NumberNo. 5D00-1944.,5D00-1944.
Citation769 So.2d 1068
PartiesRobert SPRINGER, Petitioner, v. Barry R. WEST, et al., Respondents.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Jamie Billotte Moses and Karen L. Averill, of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner.

Kenneth J. McKenna, Orlando, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Robert Springer, is a defendant in a lawsuit arising from an automobile accident and seeks a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order compelling him to answer interrogatories regarding the relationship between his trial expert and his liability insurer. We deny the writ, but write to explain why such an inquiry is proper.

Petitioner argues that the interrogatories exceed the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii), which establishes the scope of inquiry allowed of experts. However, in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla.1999), the Florida Supreme Court held that the rule was not intended to shield a party from inquiries regarding the extent of the party's relationship with an expert witness. Id. at 999. Although petitioner argues that Boecher does not apply, because the interrogatories in this case seek information regarding the relationship between his insurer, a nonparty, and the expert, whereas in Boecher, the insurer was a party, we reject that argument.

Where an insurer provides a defense for its insured and is acting as the insured's agent, the insurer's relationship to an expert is discoverable from the insured. To hold otherwise would render Boecher meaningless in all but a small class of cases. Similarly, a defendant may question a plaintiff about any relationship between his or her attorney and the plaintiff's trial expert. In both cases, the information sought is relevant to the witness's bias and will enhance the truth-seeking function and fairness of the trial, as intended by Boecher. 733 So.2d at 998.

PETITION DENIED.

SAWAYA, J., concurs.

HARRIS, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.

GRIFFIN, J., dissents, with opinion.

HARRIS, J., concurring and concurring specially:

I write to respond to the legitimate concerns of the dissent which are (1) that the discovery is being sought from a non-party, the defendant's insurance company, and (2) the fact that insurance is involved should not be made known to the jury.

The purpose of the inquiries is to determine whether there might be bias on the part of the defense expert. It is not the defendant in this case, and it will rarely be the defendant in any case, who has chosen the expert and who has developed a relationship with that expert. It is the insurer whose money is at stake that is the real party in interest and who is defending in the name of its insured. That is why the insurer controls the defense, even to the extent of naming the lawyer. By the same token, it is the plaintiff's lawyer, and not the plaintiff, who has formed the relationship with the various experts employed on plaintiff's behalf.

The supreme court has recognized the danger to the profession and to our system of civil justice of expert witnesses who are willing to sell their "opinions." In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla.1999), the court stated:

This court has not shrunk from condemning any practice that "undermines the integrity of the jury system which exists to fairly resolve actual disputes between our citizens." ... Only when all relevant facts are before the judge and jury can the "search for truth and justice" be accomplished.... As was observed in Dosdourian "[u]nder our adversary system a jury can usually assume that the parties and their counsel are motivated by the obvious interests each has in litigation," but, when the alignment of interest is unclear, "[t]he fairness of the system is undermined."

Since the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Curran, s. 5D09–1488
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 6 Enero 2012
    ...interrogatories permitted by Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla.1996), Allstate v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla.1999), Springer v. West, 769 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), should this matter proceed to litigation. k. State Farm be responsible for notifying the examining doctor of the terms......
  • Dodgen v. Grijalva
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 14 Octubre 2021
    ...has long allowed discovery of certain financial-bias information, see id. (citing Boecher , 733 So. 2d at 997, and Springer v. West , 769 So. 2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) ), the Fourth District rejected Dodgen's argument, reasoning that the discovery prohibition adopted in Worley "was ......
  • Vazquez v. Martinez
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 18 Septiembre 2015
    ...beneficial relationship continuing.”). This furthers the “truth-seeking function and fairness of the trial.” Springer v. West, 769 So.2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) ; see Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“Limiting discovery of this information w......
  • Brown v. Mittelman, 4D14–1748.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 27 Agosto 2014
    ...a relationship is permissible. See Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ; Springer v. West, 769 So.2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). A physician may derive substantial income from treating patients involved in litigation beyond the provision of service......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Dodge'n Expert Bias Discovery Issues Raised In Worley
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 26 Octubre 2021
    ...at 12. The Court noted that the Fourth District Court of Appeals correctly relied on the Fifth District's decision in Springer v. West, 769 So. 2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), which Where an insurer provides a defense for its insured and is acting as the insured's agent, the insurer's re......
  • Dodge'n Expert Bias Discovery Issues Raised In Worley
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 26 Octubre 2021
    ...at 12. The Court noted that the Fourth District Court of Appeals correctly relied on the Fifth District's decision in Springer v. West, 769 So. 2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), which Where an insurer provides a defense for its insured and is acting as the insured's agent, the insurer's re......
2 books & journal articles
  • What to Do Before and After the Defense Medical Exam
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors - Vol. 1-2 Volume 1
    • 1 Abril 2018
    ...and request for production below pursuant to the holdings in Allstate v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999); Springer v. West, 769 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970), and Gold, Vann & White v. DeBerry, 639 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)......
  • What to Do Before and After the Defense Medical Exam
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Discovery Collection. James' Best Materials - Volume 2 Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors
    • 29 Abril 2015
    ...and request for production below pursuant to the holdings in Allstate v. Boecher , 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999); Springer v. West , 769 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette , 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970), and Gold, Vann & White v. DeBerry , 639 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT