Grand Union Co. v. Patrick
| Decision Date | 20 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-32,71-32 |
| Citation | 247 So.2d 474 |
| Parties | The GRAND UNION COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Petitioner, v. Ann PATRICK, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
West, Goldman & Weisberg, Miami, for petitioner.
Kneale, Roberts, Kneale, Starkweather & Henderson, Miami, for respondent.
Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
By certiorari the defendant below seeks review of a discovery order for production. The respondent Ann Patrick filed an action for damages for personal injuries sustained when she fell on the store premises of the petitioner while there as a customer, alleging breach of duty by the defendant to maintain the premises in reasonable safe condition.
Prior to trial the plaintiff filed a motion for an order requiring the defendant to produce 'any and all accident reports which were filed by Mr. D. E. Wesgate, general manager, in the normal course of business, and in relation to that certain accident which occurred on February 25, 1969.' The motion contained no reason or ground therefor, and no good cause was shown or attempted to be shown in the motion.
Rule 1.350 F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A., dealing with motions to produce, requires that such motion shall show good cause, viz: 'On motion of any party showing good cause therefor and upon notice to all parties * * * the court in which an action is pending may (1) order any party to produce. * * *.'
It is argued on behalf of the respondent that the failure of the motion to state or show good cause was not material because reference to the pleadings should be sufficient to disclose a need or cause therefor. That argument is unsound. The requirement in the rule that such a motion to produce should show good cause is clear and appears mandatory. The motion in this case failed to conform to the requirement of the rule in that respect.
The record, including certain affidavits filed in the cause, shows that the document which it was sought to have produced was a report by the defendant to its insurer, for investigation by the latter incident to fulfillment of its obligation to defend on behalf of the insured. Such a report is privileged. See Vann v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 133. Compare Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Belcher, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 863. The principle under which such reports by an insured to its insurer are privileged is that they are considered relevant to defense of the action and in effect are communications...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Cain v. Barker
...the result we reach include Heffron v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 170 Cal.App.2d 709, 339 P.2d 567 (1959), Grand Union Co. v. Patrick, 247 So.2d 474 (Fla.App.1971), Vann v. State, 85 So.2d 133 (Fla.1956), Kandel v. Tocher, 22 A.D.2d 513, 256 N.Y.S.2d 898 (1965), Cataldo v. County of Monroe,......
-
Heidebrink v. Moriwaki
...the result we reach include Heffron v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 170 Cal.App.2d 709, 339 P.2d 567 (1959), Grand Union Co. v. Patrick, 247 So.2d 474 (Fla.App.1971), Vann v. State, 85 So.2d 133 (Fla.1956), Kandel v. Tocher, 22 A.D.2d 513, 256 N.Y.S.2d 898 (1965), Cataldo v. County of Monroe,......
-
DeMoss Rexall Drugs v. Dobson
...v. Clark (1980), 92 Ill.App.3d 518, 47 Ill.Dec. 305, 415 N.E.2d 30; Asbury v. Beerbower (1979), Ky., 589 S.W.2d 216; Grand Union Co. v. Patrick (1971), 247 So.2d 474, 475.2 DeMoss suggests that Cigna-INA/Aetna, supra and American Buildings Co. v. Kokomo Grain Co., Inc. (1987), Ind.App., 506......
-
Stambor v. One Hundred Seventy-Second Collins Corp.
...446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So.2d 146 (Fla.1972); Grand Union Co. v. Patrick, 247 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). This further supports our view that such reports ought not be admissible in evidence as trustworthy business Moreove......