25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 546b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2506BUTLInsurance — Discovery — Mold assessor — Objections by corporate plaintiff to insurer’s deposition duces tecum of its owner, a licensed mold assessor and licensed public adjuster, seeking disclosure of documentation of claims referral fees are overruled — Given licenses held by owner and statutes governing the areas of those licenses, court finds that requests are relevant and may lead to discovery of admissible evidence
ADVANCED BUILDING ASSESSMENT, INC., a/a/o Edward Butler, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2017-CC-002163-O. August 16, 2017. Eric H. DuBois, Judge. Counsel: Hans Kennon, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Robert Kingsford and Lynn Alfano, Alfano Kingsford, P.A., Maitland, for Defendant.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’SNOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
THIS CAUSE having come to be heard before the Honorable Eric H. DuBois on August 16, 2017 on Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum, and the Court having reviewed the record, heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant requested the following documents for the August 23, 2017 deposition of Eric Osking, who is the owner of Advanced Building Assessment, Inc., and Plaintiff objected as follows:
7. All documentation of any referral fee paid to your company from Dririte USA, Inc. for claim referrals.
Objection; the request is vague, proprietary, over broad, ambiguous, irrelevant to any issue before this Court, and is not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
8. All documentation of any referral fee paid by your company to Dririte USA, Inc. for claim referrals.
Objection; the request is vague, proprietary, over broad, ambiguous, irrelevant to any issue before this Court, and is not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
2. Eric Osking is a licensed mold assessor in the State of Florida, License No. MRSA2275. Florida Statute §468.8419 under the Chapter pertaining to Mold Related Services states that:
“(1) A person may not: . . . (f) Accept any compensation, inducement, or reward from a mold remediator or mold remediator’s company for the referral of any business to the mold remediator or the mold remediator’s company. (g) Offer any compensation, inducement, or reward to a mold remediator or mold remediator’s company for the referral of any business from the mold remediator or the mold remediator’s company.”
3. Furthermore, Eric Osking is a licensed public adjuster in the State of Florida, License No. A197538. A public adjuster may be disciplined pursuant to Florida Statute §626.8698 for:
“(3) Receiving or accepting any fee, kickback, or other thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise; entering into a split-fee arrangement with another person who is not a public adjuster; or being otherwise paid or accepting payment for services that have not been performed;”
4. Based upon the licenses held by Eric Osking, and the Statutes governing the areas of Mr. Osking’s licenses, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and finds that the requests are relevant and may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence so that any applicable documents should be produced by Mr. Osking at the time of his deposition.
