Burt v. Government Employees Insurance Co.

603 So. 2d 125, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8514, 1992 WL 187219
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 7, 1992
DocketNo. 92-01870
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 603 So. 2d 125 (Burt v. Government Employees Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burt v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 603 So. 2d 125, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8514, 1992 WL 187219 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, husband and wife in this personal injury case, petition this court for a writ of certiorari to quash an order compelling the wife to answer certain questions at a deposition. Defendant’s counsel asked the wife two questions at her deposition: when did the wife obtain counsel and did counsel refer her to a particular physician. She refused to answer and asserted the attorney-client privilege. We grant the petition.

The contents of confidential communications between the attorney and client are privileged and not discoverable. See § 90.502, Fla.Stat. (1991); Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). Although the first question does not violate the attorney-client privilege in this instance, the second question seeks discovery of confidential communications constituting her attorney’s advice regarding this lawsuit. Such advice is not intended to be disclosed to third parties. The question does not elicit the [126]*126underlying fact of whether she saw a particular physician, but rather elicits whether she saw the physician at her attorney’s request. Because this communication does not fall within any of the enumerated exceptions to the privilege listed in section 90.502, we grant the petition and quash that portion of the order requiring the wife to answer the second question.

The petition for certiorari is granted, and the circuit court’s order is quashed in part.

LEHAN, C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bahr v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
S.D. Florida, 2021
Plogger v. Myers
2017 Ohio 8229 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)
Heather Worley v. Central Florida Young Men's Christian, etc.
228 So. 3d 18 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)
Coffey-Garcia and Garcia v. South Miami Hospital, Inc.
194 So. 3d 533 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Worley v. Central Florida Young Men's Christian Ass'n
163 So. 3d 1240 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
in Re Richard J. McIntyre
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012
In Re Avila
22 S.W.3d 349 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
603 So. 2d 125, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8514, 1992 WL 187219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burt-v-government-employees-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1992.