State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. K.A.W.

557 So. 2d 601, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 504, 1990 WL 6564
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 31, 1990
DocketNos. 89-0901, 89-0921
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 557 So. 2d 601 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. K.A.W.) 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. K.A.W., 557 So. 2d 601, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 504, 1990 WL 6564 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition for certiorari as petitioners failed to show irreparable injury or that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying [602]*602the motion to disqualify respondents’ attorneys from continued representation in this case.

The petitioner insurance companies sought to disqualify the respondents’ attorneys from representing the respondents. The attorneys originally represented a father, mother and daughter in connection with an automobile accident and related malpractice claim. The father drove the vehicle in which his passenger daughter was injured in a collision. After the father gave his deposition and after full consultation, the attorneys deemed it necessary on behalf of the mother and daughter, to sue the father for negligence in causing the accident. The father consented, then was joined as a defendant together with his insurance company, and now has retained his own counsel. The insurance companies challenged the continued representation of the mother and daughter by the law firm, even though the father consented to its continued representation of the mother and daughter against him. Additionally, the father filed an affidavit stating he had said everything pertinent to the case in his deposition, he did not consider anything he said to his former counsel privileged, and he saw no disadvantage to him of their continued representation of his family. We note that here no proof of substantial prejudice or circumstances exists calling into question the fair and efficient administration of justice and, therefore, need not address the impact of such factors on a question of standing where they are present.

HERSEY, C.J., and STONE, J., concur. WARNER, J., concurs specially with opinion.

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

Related

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. KAW
575 So. 2d 630 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
557 So. 2d 601, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 504, 1990 WL 6564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-co-v-kaw-fladistctapp-1990.