Ex parte Lord
| Citation | 399 So.2d 290 |
| Parties | Ex parte Tammy Annette LORD and Willie Knowles. (In re Harvey G. BAGGETT and Angelia Baggett, who sues by her father and nextfriend, Harvey G. Baggett v. Tammy Annette LORD, Willie Knowles, et al.) 80-145. |
| Decision Date | 28 May 1981 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
E. J. Saad of Brown, Hudgens, Richardson, Whitfield & Gillion, Mobile, for petitioners.
James E. Hart, Jr., Brewton, for respondents.
Tammy Annette Lord and Willie Knowles petition this Court for a writ of mandamus and pray that the trial judge be ordered to withdraw his order compelling discovery. We grant in part and deny in part.
On March 17, 1979, Angelia Baggett, a minor passenger in a truck driven by Lord, received leg and pelvic injuries when the truck collided with a concrete culvert on County Road # 33 in Escambia County. Suit for damages was filed by Angelia's father against Lord and her grandfather, Knowles, the owner of the truck. The complaint was bottomed on negligence and wantonness of Lord, and negligent entrustment by Knowles, owner of the truck.
On July 2, 1980, the Baggetts' lawyer served Lord and Knowles with a request for production of:
(1) Copies of all statements, if any made to their insurance company or any other agent or person regarding the accident that is the basis of the suit in this case.
(2) All photographs, investigative reports and other documents, of any kind, relating to the accident and injuries to the plaintiff in this cause which may be in the possession of the defendants or their insurance carrier.
(3) The names and addresses of all witnesses, that they have knowledge of to the accident.
(4) All medical records, if any, received by the insurance carrier in connection with the injuries to Angelia Baggett.
(5) A copy of the insurance policy insuring the defendants.
When the requested information was not produced, the trial judge, on motion of the Baggetts, entered an order, dated August 25, compelling production. On October 15, an employee of Allstate Insurance Company filed an affidavit stating, principally, that the investigation of the accident was conducted in anticipation of eventual litigation. On November 17, the trial judge entered another order, in effect saying, either produce the requested information or be held in contempt. Lord and Knowles petition this Court for mandamus to have both orders of the trial judge vacated.
As we review it, this case is not totally distinguishable from Ex parte State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 386 So.2d 1133 (Ala.1980). Based on that authority, we hold that the discovery of all of the requested materials cannot be ordered because the Baggetts have not shown that they have a substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc.
-
Bethel v. Thorn
... ... We agree that this is a correct statement of law. See Ex parte Charles Bell Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac-GMC, Inc., 496 So.2d 774, 775 (Ala.1986) ("In Alabama, the general rule is that officers or employees of a ... ...
-
Ex parte Bozeman
...Insurance Company, 410 So.2d 399 (Ala.1982) (this court noting that impeachment, if raised, might have justified discovery); Ex parte Lord, 399 So.2d 290 (Ala.1981); Ex parte May, 393 So.2d 1006 (Ala.1981); Ex parte State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 386 So.2d 1133 (Ala.1980). ......
-
Ex parte Badham
...added). The Shoppe contends that these comments and the Court of Civil Appeals are in error because this Court held in Ex parte Lord, 399 So.2d 290, 292 (Ala.1981), that the plaintiffs were "entitled to discovery of the insurance policy ... to determine the existence of coverage only—not th......