Kuhns v. Fenton

Decision Date19 December 1973
Docket NumberNo. 43697,43697
Citation288 So.2d 253
PartiesStanley R. KUHNS et al., Petitioners, v. Deborah Anyzeski FENTON et al., Respondents.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Edna L. Caruso, Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D'Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

Richard W. Slawson, Thompson, Tucker & Slawson, West Palm Beach, for respondents-Fenton.

Michael B. Davis, Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents-Hinz and State Farm.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (Kuhns v. Fenton, 274 So.2d 605), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of that same court (Maule Industries, Inc. v. Rountree, 264 So.2d 445). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A.

In the case Sub judice, petitioners Kuhns and Nationwide Insurance Company were defendants in the trial court. Respondents Hinz and State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company were co-defendants, and respondents Fentons were plaintiffs. Plaintiff Deborah Anyzeski Fenton entered into a 'Mary Carter Agreement' with defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company. The trial court granted defendant Kuhns' motion to produce the 'Mary Carter Agreement,' but at trial denied Kuhns' and Nationwide's offer to introduce it into evidence. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs and defendants Kuhns and Nationwide appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, rendered a per curiam affirmance.

In Maule Industries, Inc. v. Rountree, Supra, a pre-trial motion to produce a 'Mary Carter Agreement' was denied by the trial court. The District Court held that the trial court's failure to require a pre-trial production of the agreement constituted error, but that this error was not prejudicial. Upon review (Maule Industries, Inc. v. Rountree, Fla., 284 So.2d 389 opinion filed September 26, 1973), we held that 'Mary Carter Agreements' are a proper subject for pre-trial discovery and that the denial of such discovery was prejudicial to petitioners. Mr. Justice Boyd, quoting from Ward v. Ochoa, Fla., 284 So.2d 385 opinion filed September 26, 1973, stated:

'If the agreement shows that the signing defendant will have his maximum liability reduced by increasing the liability of one or more codefendants, such agreement should be admitted into evidence at trial upon the request of any other defendant who may stand to lose as a result of such agreement.'

In the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Porter Hayden Co. v. Bullinger, 56
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 1997
    ...and permit disclosure to the jury. See Mustang Equip., Inc. v. Welch, 115 Ariz. 206, 211, 564 P.2d 895, 900 (1977); Kuhns v. Fenton, 288 So.2d 253, 253-54 (Fla.1973); Cox v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 594 P.2d 354, 359-60 Given the broad scope and purpose of Maryland's discovery rules, the relevancy......
  • General Motors Corp. v. Simmons
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 9 Noviembre 1977
    ...1 tends to undermine the adversary nature and integrity of the proceedings against the remaining defendant." See also Kuhns v. Fenton, 288 So.2d 253 (Fla.1973); Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So.2d 387 (Fla.1973); Imperial Elevator Co. v. Cohen, 311 So.2d 732 (Fla.App.1975); General Portland Land Devel......
  • Sequoia Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Halec Const. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 2 Agosto 1977
    ...Mary Carter Paint Company, 202 So.2d 8 (Fla.App.1967); Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So.2d 385 (Fla.1973), cited in Mustang, supra ; Kuhns v. Fenton, 288 So.2d 253 (Fla.1974); Imperial Elevator Company, Inc. v. Cohen, 311 So.2d 732 This does not, however, solve any problems in this case. The clear int......
  • Rick v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. and Development
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 28 Mayo 1993
    ...1 tends to undermine the adversary nature and integrity of the proceedings against the remaining defendant." See also Kuhns v. Fenton, 288 So.2d 253 (Fla.1973); Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So.2d 385 (Fla.1973); Imperial Elevator Co. v. Cohen, 311 So.2d 732 (Fla.App.1975); General Portland Land Devel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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