State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. K.A.W.
575 So.2d 630 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law firm is subject to disqualification for suing a former client in the same matter, despite the former client's consent, when the former client's insurers object. Insurers have standing to seek disqualification to protect against the use of confidential information and to ensure the fair administration of justice, which is compromised when an attorney has an informational advantage gained from a prior representation.
Facts:
- David Wilkerson was driving a car with his wife and infant daughter as passengers when it was involved in an accident.
- The Wilkerson family retained the Schlesinger law firm to represent all three of them in a personal injury lawsuit arising from the accident.
- The Schlesinger firm also represented all three Wilkersons in a separate medical malpractice action concerning the daughter's subsequent treatment.
- Approximately two years into the personal injury case, the Schlesinger firm determined that David Wilkerson's own negligence may have contributed to the accident.
- David Wilkerson discharged the Schlesinger firm as his counsel in the personal injury action.
- Subsequently, Mrs. Wilkerson and her daughter, still represented by the Schlesinger firm, amended their complaint to add David Wilkerson as a defendant.
- David Wilkerson consented to being sued by his wife and daughter up to the limits of his insurance coverage and waived any conflict of interest with the Schlesinger firm's continued representation of his family.
Procedural Posture:
- The Wilkersons, represented by the Schlesinger firm, filed a personal injury lawsuit in a Florida trial court.
- After David Wilkerson was added as a defendant, his insurers, State Farm, Continental Casualty, and Interstate Fire & Casualty, filed motions in the trial court to disqualify the Schlesinger firm.
- The trial court denied the motions for disqualification, finding the insurers lacked standing and had not shown prejudice.
- The insurers (petitioners) sought review of the trial court's order by filing petitions for a writ of certiorari in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the petitions, affirming the trial court's decision.
- The insurers then petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review, which was granted on the basis of conflict with decisions from other appellate districts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Must a law firm be disqualified from representing clients against a former client in the same matter when the former client consents to the representation, but the former client's insurers, who are obligated to pay any judgment, object?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, J.
Yes, the law firm must be disqualified. The court held that the insurers have standing to seek disqualification because the situation calls into question the fair administration of justice. Since David Wilkerson's personal liability is limited to his insurance coverage, the insurers are the real parties in interest defending the claim. The firm's prior representation of Mr. Wilkerson creates an irrefutable presumption that it received confidential information, giving the wife and daughter an unfair informational advantage. Mr. Wilkerson's consent does not resolve the issue because the unfairness affects the insurers who must defend him and pay any judgment. The court applied the two-part test for disqualification: an attorney-client relationship existed, and the current matter is the same as the prior representation. Thus, disqualification is required without any need to show actual prejudice.
Dissenting - Barkett, J.
The court should not have decided the issue. The dissent argued that the Supreme Court of Florida did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the district court's opinion did not create a legal conflict with the decisions of other courts.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that an insurer may 'stand in the shoes' of its insured to disqualify opposing counsel, even when the insured has waived the conflict. The ruling emphasizes that conflict of interest rules protect not only the former client but also the integrity and fairness of the adversarial system. By looking beyond the nominal parties to the real parties in interest (the insurers), the court prevents potentially collusive situations in intrafamily torts where an insured consents to being sued by his former attorney to facilitate a recovery from his own insurance policy. The case strongly reaffirms that meeting the 'substantially related' test creates an irrefutable presumption of shared confidences, making proof of actual prejudice unnecessary for disqualification.
Unlock the full brief for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. K.A.W.