Getter v. Yanks, 73--1262
| Decision Date | 26 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1262,73--1262 |
| Citation | 290 So.2d 543 |
| Parties | Sidney GETTER, Appellant, v. Barry YANKS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bernstein, Robrish & Harrington, Coconut Grove, for appellant.
Milton E. Grusmark, Miami Beach, for Barry Yanks and Stuyvesant Ins. Co.
S. Strome Maxwell, Tallahassee, for Thomas D. O'Malley, as State Treasurer and Ins. Commissioner and Dept. of Ins. of Fla.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
By this interlocutory appeal, the appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order denying his motion to compel discovery.
Appellant filed a complaint against defendants Yanks and the Stuyvesant Insurance Company, alleging, inter alia, an intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship. Thereafter, the appellant issued a subpoena duces tecum to the Office of the State Insurance Commissioner, the Honorable Thomas D. O'Malley, specifically seeking that production of a notice of termination filed by the defendants with the Commissioner. This notice related to the termination of plaintiff's employment as a limited surety agent with the defendants. The Commissioner's office declined to furnish the document, giving as its reason that the document is privileged. Appellant filed a motion to compel discovery, which the court denied. This appeal followed.
Appellant has presented two points on appeal: first, that the trial court erred in finding the notice of termination privileged under Fla.Stat. § 648.39(3), F.S.A. under the facts of the instant case; and second, that the said statute as applied in this case is unconstitutional in that it violates his right to earn a living which is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Since appellant's second point raises a constitutional issue, we reach that point first. Appellant argues that Section 648.39(3) violates his right to earn a living as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, the statute does not affect the certificate of qualification or competency to become a licensed limited surety agent in Florida. As we understand the notice of termination, it simply represents the termination of the private employer-employee relationship between the insurance company and the limited surety agents. It does not affect the agent's right to obtain another company to underwrite his bonds. Therefore, the Department of Insurance has not revoked the appellant's certificate of qualification or competency, and we cannot see merit to his contention that he has been deprived of the right to earn a living.
We have determined that the trial court was correct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Miami Beach v. Town
...Rose v. D'Alessandro, 364 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); City of Tampa v. Harold, 352 So.2d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Getter v. Yanks, 290 So.2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Widener v. Croft, 184 So.2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 192 So.2d 486 (Fla.1966). In the absence of a clear showin......
-
Rose v. D'Alessandro
...policy requires that some of them, although of a public nature, be kept secret and free from public inspection. In Getter v. Yanks, 290 So.2d 543, 544 (Fla.3d DCA 1974) the court Sound public policy dictates that in certain instances public records are privileged, even where such records wo......