State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. H Rehab, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. H Rehab, Inc.

77 So. 3d 724, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18088, 2011 WL 5554787

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 2011

DocketNo. 3D11-965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 So. 3d 724 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. H Rehab, Inc.) 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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. H Rehab, Inc., 77 So. 3d 724, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18088, 2011 WL 5554787 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUAREZ, J.

The Petitioner, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), petitions for Writ of Certiorari to review the decision of the circuit court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, sitting in its appellate capacity. That court’s decision affirmed the trial court’s order granting the [725]*725Respondent’s, H Rehab Inc., a/a/o Paula A. Villa, Plaintiff below, motion to compel production of State Farm’s surveillance video prior to allowing State Farm the opportunity to depose the subject of the video. For the second time as between these two parties,¹ we grant State Farm’s petition for certiorari, and quash only that part of the order below granting the Plaintiffs motion for production, as the circuit court violated a clearly established principle of law. See Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704, 708 (Fla.1980) (holding that the trial court’s discretion to allow discovery deposition before disclosure is “an appropriate middle road to ensure that all relevant evidence reaches the trier of fact in a fair and accurate fashion”).

We, therefore, grant the petition, quash only that part of the order under review that granted the Plaintiff/Respondent’s motion to compel production of the surveillance video/DVD,² and remand with instructions that State Farm is not required to produce the surveillance video/DVD pri- or to taking the deposition of the Plaintiff and insured/Plaintiffs assignor, Paula A. Villa. The above issue was the only portion of the trial court’s order appealed to the Appellate Division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and the only issue raised in this second tier certiorari. We thus express no opinion as to the remainder of the order under review.

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

SUAREZ, J.

The Petitioner, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), petitions for Writ of Certiorari to review the decision of the circuit court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, sitting in its appellate capacity. That court’s decision affirmed the trial court’s order granting the [725]*725Respondent’s, H Rehab Inc., a/a/o Paula A. Villa, Plaintiff below, motion to compel production of State Farm’s surveillance video prior to allowing State Farm the opportunity to depose the subject of the video. For the second time as between these two parties,¹ we grant State Farm’s petition for certiorari, and quash only that part of the order below granting the Plaintiffs motion for production, as the circuit court violated a clearly established principle of law. See Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704, 708 (Fla.1980) (holding that the trial court’s discretion to allow discovery deposition before disclosure is “an appropriate middle road to ensure that all relevant evidence reaches the trier of fact in a fair and accurate fashion”).

We, therefore, grant the petition, quash only that part of the order under review that granted the Plaintiff/Respondent’s motion to compel production of the surveillance video/DVD,² and remand with instructions that State Farm is not required to produce the surveillance video/DVD pri- or to taking the deposition of the Plaintiff and insured/Plaintiffs assignor, Paula A. Villa. The above issue was the only portion of the trial court’s order appealed to the Appellate Division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and the only issue raised in this second tier certiorari. We thus express no opinion as to the remainder of the order under review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 3d 724, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18088, 2011 WL 5554787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-co-v-h-rehab-inc-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack