14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 95a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Failure to attend — Where insurer has shown deliberate and contumacious disregard of court’s authority, bad faith, willful disrespect or gross indifference to court order and deliberate callousness by failing to follow three prior orders requiring insurer’s claims adjuster to appear at depositions, insurer’s pleadings are stricken
FLORIDA HEALTH AND CHIROPRACTIC MEDICINE, as assignee of BARBARA RAMOS, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 05-10955 (50). November 7, 2006. Peter B. Skolnick, Judge. Counsel: Robert H. Stein, Young & Adams, Boca Raton. Ben Soo-Hoo, Office of the General Counsel, Coral Gables.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on October 18, 2006 for a hearing on the Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Strike and for Sanctions, and the Court having reviewed the Motion and entire Court file; heard argument from both sides; reviewed the relevant legal authorities; and been sufficiently advised in the premises, rules as follows:
1. On or about May 12, 2005, the Plaintiff, FLORIDA HEALTH AND CHIROPRACTIC MEDICINE, as assignee of BARBARA RAMOS, filed a claim for PIP benefits under Florida Statute §627.736 and breach of contract against the Defendant, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
2. On or about October 7, 2005 and November 14, 2005, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the Defendant requesting deposition dates for the Litigation and Claims Adjusters. There was no response from the Defendant in the Court file and Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Adjuster in this claim.
3. On December 6, 2005, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition giving the Defendant forty-five (45) days from the date of the Order to supply the Adjuster for deposition. The deposition was scheduled for January 11, 2006.
4. On January 11, 2006, the Defendant’s counsel failed to appear at the deposition which was duly noticed. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions for failure to appear at the deposition.
5. On March 14, 2006, this Court signed an Agreed Order worked out by both parties which required the Defendant to pay $400.00 in sanctions for failing to appear at the deposition. The Order further required the deposition of the Adjuster shall be completed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
6. Pursuant to the Court’s Order requiring the Defendant to give a deposition, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant on multiple occasions in order to schedule the deposition of the Adjuster pursuant to the Court’s Order. Upon receiving no responses from the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions.
7. On June 27, 2006, this Court heard Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions. After listening to all of the testimony from the Plaintiff and the Defendant, this Court awarded the Plaintiff $1,500.00 in sanctions for the violation of two (2) previous Court Orders. The Court’s Order further required the deposition of the Litigation Adjuster to be completed on July 31, 2006, August 1, 2006 or August 3, 2006 upon agreement by the parties. The deposition of the Litigation Adjuster was noticed for July 31, 2006. The Adjuster failed to appear at the deposition on July 31, 2006.
8. On August 8, 2006, the Plaintiff filed its Second Motion to Strike and for Sanctions. The Court ruled that the Defendant has shown a deliberate and contumacious disregard of the Court’s authority as well as bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an Order of the Court, and conduct which evinces deliberate callousness. The Defendant has failed to follow three (3) prior Court Orders of this Court, see Mercer v. J.D. Raine, 443 So.2d 944, (Fla. 1984), Swindle v. Reid, 242 So.2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), Harold v. Computer Components International, Inc., 252 So.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
9. Accordingly, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(b)(2)(C) this Court has determined that the Defendant’s pleadings will be stricken for failure to comply with multiple Court Orders. Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Strike and for Sanctions is granted. The pleadings of the Defendant are stricken.
