Travelers Indem. Co. v. Fields, Q--135
| Decision Date | 23 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. Q--135,Q--135 |
| Citation | 262 So.2d 222 |
| Parties | The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Melvin FIELDS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cliff B. Gosney, Jr., of Gosney, Hutcheson & Haas, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
William M. Barr, of Raymond, Wilson, Karl, Conway & Barr, Daytona Beach, for respondent.
Defendant insurance company seeks review by certiorari of an order rendered by the trial court requiring a claims adjuster employed by it to answer two questions propounded to him on his deposition. Review is also sought of that provision of the same order which requires defendant to produce and deliver to the court for an in camera examination 17 documents written and furnished to it by its claims adjuster relative to the fire loss which forms the basis of this action. Plaintiff claims the right to inspect the questioned documents in preparation of his case for trial. We accept jurisdiction to determine the points raised. 1
The documents involved herein may be generally characterized as correspondence, reports, cost estimates, written instructions, and information in the custody and control of defendant's claims adjuster or which may have been furnished to or received by him from defendant in connection with the fire loss suffered by plaintiff.
It is noted that the order here assaulted requires only that the questioned documents be delivered to the court for an in camera examination preliminary to a ruling on defendant's objection and motion for a protective order. No ruling has yet been made requiring that all or any of the documents be produced for plaintiff's inspection and use.
Petitioner contends that the motion to produce the documents affirmatively establishes that they constitute petitioner's work product which it is not lawfully required to divulge. From an examination of the record before us, we are unable to determine with any degree of certainty whether any or all of the documents are in fact nothing more than business records acquired and developed by petitioner in the usual course of its business of investigating and settling fire losses sustained by its insureds or are its work product acquired in connection with or in anticipation of this lawsuit brought by respondent.
The work product of a party litigant is not subject to discovery by another party to the cause except upon a showing of compelling necessity in order to reach the merits of the case. This is not on the principle of privileged communications but one of public policy underlying the orderly presentation and defense of legal claims. 2
If it is ultimately determined that the documents are merely business records acquired by petitioner in the usual course of its business, then respondent has the right to inspect them in connection with the discovery procedures initiated by him. If on the other hand the documents are held to be the work product of petitioner, then its objection to respondent's motion and its motion for a protective order should be granted. However, in the event an in camera examination of the documents viewed in the light of any evidence relative thereto, which may be submitted to the court by the parties, demonstrates a compelling necessity for the documents to be exhibited to respondent, then such may be ordered by the court in the exercise of its discretion. 3
Such a necessity recognized as an exception to the work product exclusionary rule may be established by a showing (1) that the underlying evidence has been damaged, disassembled, changed, or is inaccessible to the same examination by respondent; (2) that the withholding of the information contained in the documents sought would defeat the interest of justice; or (3) that the information is not as readily available to respondent as it was to petitioner. 4
We are unwilling to assume that after an in camera examination of the documents in question, the trial court will order that they be produced for respondent's inspection unless such is authorized under the principles set forth herein. In the event the trial court finds that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Simmons
...Cousino v. State, 473 So.2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Dade County Medical Ass'n v. Hlis, 372 So.2d at 119 n. 1; Travelers Indemn. Co. v. Fields, 262 So.2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Strain v. Miami Transfer Co., 155 So.2d at 172; see also State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lenard, 531 So.2d 18......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 76--888
...discovery. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So.2d 693 (Fla.1957); Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108 (Fla.1970); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Fields, 262 So.2d 222 (Fla.1st DCA 1972); Nationwide Insurance Co. Pinellas City v. Monroe, 276 So.2d 547 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); see in particular, Allstat......
-
Magbanua v. State
...certiorari as premature where order simply required documents be submitted to court for in camera review); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Fields , 262 So.2d 222, 223-24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (denying certiorari as premature where trial court had not yet examined disputed discovery documents in camer......
-
Charles v. State, 3D16–509.
...this Court should dismiss the petition rather than deny it. Capital One, N.A., 34 So.3d at 212. See also Travelers Indem. Co. v. Fields, 262 So.2d 222, 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (certiorari review premature on discovery issue where the trial court had not yet conducted in camera review); Sout......