Cavalere v. Graham, 82-1139
| Decision Date | 24 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1139,82-1139 |
| Citation | 423 So.2d 428 |
| Parties | Virginia E. CAVALERE, David T. Cavalere and Allstate Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. John Russell GRAHAM, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert W. Mixson of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, P.A., Orlando, for petitioners.
H. Scott Bates of Richard W. Bates, P.A., and Robert J. Buonauro, Orlando, for respondent.
Petitioners, Virginia E. Cavalere, David T. Cavalere and Allstate Insurance Company, seek a writ of certiorari to review an order of the circuit court which granted respondent John Russell Graham's motion to compel discovery from an adjuster for petitioner insurance company. 1 We grant the petition for certiorari and quash the discovery order.
The lower court order compels the adjuster to answer questions propounded to her at a deposition, which were certified to the court following the deponent's refusal to answer. Additionally, the order requires the production of Allstate's complete file pertaining to Graham's claim arising out of the auto accident.
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. Shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small, 148 So.2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). See also Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v. Timmons, 61 So.2d 426 (Fla.1952). The respondent has not presented any evidence in the record showing a compelling necessity for discovery. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(2).
Graham claims that an exception is present based on the line of cases allowing for discovery in actions for bad faith against an insurance company for failure to settle within policy limits. This contention is spurious because this is not a bad faith case. Graham and Allstate had in fact settled the claim. Furthermore, no fiduciary relationship has existed at any time between Graham and Allstate, nor is this a situation wherein there is an implicit assignment of a cause of action by the insured to the third-party plaintiff. See Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of N.Y., 250 So.2d 259 (Fla.1971); Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 325 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 599 (Fla.1976).
The lower court's order requiring discovery departs from the essential requirements of the law. Therefore, the Petition for Writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huet v. Tromp
...circumstances constituting compelling necessity for the discovery in order to reach the merits of the cause. See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So.2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, a party may waive the work product privilege with respect to matters covered by an investigator's anticipated test......
-
Ruhland v. Gibeault
...Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984); Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So.2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). ...
-
New Life Acres, Inc. v. Strickland
...a party is privileged from discovery. See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) and Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So.2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of law. Therefore, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari i......
-
Cavalere v. Graham, 83-480
...three parties being the petitioners for certiorari herein and in the prior petition resulting in our opinion in Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So.2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). As a result of the collision between the Cavalere vehicle and another, Graham sued the Cavaleres and Allstate. These defenda......