Shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small
| Decision Date | 15 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 62-644,62-644 |
| Citation | 148 So.2d 556 |
| Parties | SHAWMUT VAN LINES, INC., and Home Fire and Marine Insurance Company of California, Petitioners, v. Brett SMALL, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam and Harold L. Ward, Miami, for petitioners.
Welsh, Cornell, Pyszka & Carlton and Henry R. Stroemer, Miami, for respondent.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
The petitioner-insurance company is being sued upon an insurance policy. Its petition for certiorari in this Court seeks reversal of an order of the circuit court which granted plaintiff-respondent's motion to compel discovery from an adjuster allegedly employed by the insurance company. The language of the order is as follows: 'C. A. Craig is hereby required to conform to and abide by the terms of the subpoena heretofore served upon him and testify in response thereto and to present his file for a reasonable examination and reproduction if required.'
It has previously been determined that 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. Ford Motor Co. v. Havee, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 572. A review of the record submitted to us does not substantiate the application of the exception to the general rule to the file of the investigator. Therefore, that portion of the order which directs the adjuster to turn over the file for examination and reproduction is quashed.
The order which the petition seeks to review was not limited to the matter of the investigator's file. Plaintiff was prevented from asking the witness, Craig, any questions on deposition except his name and occupation. Insurance adjusters, however, are not by occupation precluded from discovery; and if upon the remand of this cause particular questions are asked which are objectionable because they invade the work product of this defendant, the defendant may object to the questions. The trial court will then be able to determine from such evidence as is before it whether the adjuster is the agent of the defendant and whether the answers sought will invade the defendant's privilege.
Plaintiff has alleged a course of dealing with the insurance adjuster extending over a considerable length of time prior to the filing of suit. He has urged thereupon that the matters and things he wishes to inquire into may come within an exception to the rule against disclosure of work product in that they concern dealings between himself and the insurance company. We do not have a sufficient record to make this determination, nor do we find that the trial judge had such information.
Upon remand the witness, C. A. Craig, will be required to report for examination as noticed by the plaintiff and with the file which has been subpoenaed. Thereafter the cause should proceed with objections to specific questions, if necessary, and certification to the trial judge of those questions to which the plaintiff demands an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lifshutz v. Citizens and Southern Nat. Bank of Florida
...investigator-consultant. Alachua Gen. Hosp. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small, 148 So.2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). See also Vann v. State, 85 So.2d 133 (Fla.1956). With respect to work product disclosure, the order departs from the essen......
-
Motor Union (Aviation) Orion Ins. Co. v. Levenson
...shown. See Ford Motor Company v. Havee, fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 572, and authorities cited there. The case of shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 556, relied on by the appellant is distinguishable. There the court recognized that by reason of the length and nature of t......
-
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bennett
...of litigation. See Alachua General Hospital, Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small, 148 So.2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Mere likelihood of litigation does not satisfy this qualification. Because the applicable rule, Florida Rule of Civi......
-
Cavalere v. Graham, 82-1139
...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 ......