Case Search

Please select a category.

STEVEN STARK, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1157a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2012STARInsurance — Discovery — Financial relationship between insurer and expert witness

STEVEN STARK, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Circuit Court, 5th Judicial Circuit in and for Marion County. Case No. 2011-001-CA. July 11, 2013. Steven G. Rogers, Judge.

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONTO ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA TO MCDOF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC.

THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(d) (2013), on July 10, 2013, on the Defendant’s Objection to Issuance of Subpoena to MCD of Central Florida, Inc., (referenced as MCD herein) filed October 1, 2013, and the Court having considered the same as well as the arguments of counsel at the hearing which was conducted on July 10, 2013, the Court finds the information requested by the Plaintiff is simply financial information for the amount(s) paid by the Defendant to MCD since 2004, and a personnel file for one employee. The majority of this information is presumably be located in the company’s tax records. The proposed subpoena does not request “all documents and reports” for the work MCD performed for the Defendant.

“A jury is entitled to know the extent of the financial connection between the part and the witness, and the cumulative amount a party has paid an expert during their relationship. A party is entitled to argue to the jury that a witness might be more likely to testify favorably on behalf of the party because of the witness’s financial incentive to continue the financially advantageous relationship.” Allstate v. Boecher733 So.2d 993, 997-98 (Fla. 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly S187a]. In reviewing the deposition transcript of MCD’s representative, Matthew Cain, he testified MCD was paid approximately $9 million by the Defendant over the past three years. As such, it appears MCD has the information the Plaintiff requested in their subpoena.

It is therefore ORDERED the Defendant’s Objection to Issuance of Subpoena Directed to MCD of Central Florida, Inc., is OVERRULLED.

* * *

Skip to content