Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher
24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 187, 1999 Fla. LEXIS 662, 733 So. 2d 993 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The limitations on financial discovery from expert witnesses established in Elkins v. Syken and codified in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii) do not prevent a party from discovering information directly from an opposing party regarding the extent of that party's financial relationship with its own retained expert.
Facts:
- Robert Boecher was involved in an accident and filed an uninsured motorist claim against his insurer, Allstate Insurance Company.
- In the ensuing litigation, Allstate retained Biodynamics Research Corporation to serve as an expert in accident reconstruction and injury causation.
- Boecher's counsel served interrogatories on Allstate, seeking information about Allstate's relationship with Biodynamics.
- Specifically, the interrogatories asked for the number of cases in which Biodynamics had performed analyses for Allstate nationwide in the preceding three years.
- The interrogatories also sought the total amount of fees Allstate had paid to Biodynamics nationwide during the same three-year period.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Boecher sued Allstate Insurance Company in a Florida trial court to recover uninsured motorist benefits.
- During discovery, Boecher served interrogatories on Allstate regarding its relationship with its expert, Biodynamics Research Corporation.
- Allstate objected to the discovery requests, but the trial court overruled the objections and ordered Allstate to respond.
- Allstate, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (Fourth DCA) to quash the trial court's order.
- The Fourth DCA denied certiorari, thereby upholding the trial court's discovery order, but certified conflict with a decision from the Third District Court of Appeal.
- The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction to resolve the conflict between the district courts of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii) or the precedent set in Elkins v. Syken prohibit discovery requests propounded directly to a party regarding the frequency with which it has retained a particular expert and the total fees paid to that expert?
Opinions:
Majority - Pariente, J.
No. Neither the precedent in Elkins v. Syken nor Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii) prohibits discovery requests directed to a party regarding its financial relationship with an expert witness. The court reasoned that the policy concerns underlying Elkins—protecting non-party experts from annoyance, embarrassment, undue burden, and invasions of personal financial privacy—are not implicated when the discovery is sought from the party employing the expert. The court distinguished this situation by stating that the balance of interests shifts in favor of allowing discovery, as the information is directly relevant and highly probative of the witness's potential bias. The jury is entitled to know the extent of the financial relationship between a party and its expert to properly assess the witness's credibility, and limiting such discovery could create a false impression of independence, undermining the truth-seeking function of a trial.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a critical distinction between discovery sought from a non-party expert witness versus discovery sought from a party litigant about that expert. It significantly narrows the protective scope of Elkins v. Syken, preventing parties from using it as a shield to hide financially significant relationships with their frequently used experts. The ruling reinforces the principle that evidence of bias is highly relevant and discoverable, promoting transparency and allowing juries to more accurately assess witness credibility. In practice, this decision strengthens a litigant's ability to expose potential 'hired gun' experts by obtaining discovery directly from the party that retains and pays them.
