25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 973a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2511DRA2Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Insurer’s corporate representative — Requested deposition is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, despite insurer’s contention that policy was rescinded ab initio — Motion to compel deposition granted
COLONIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. as Assignee of Draper, Daunte, Plaintiff, v. CENTURY-NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2016-CC-013154-O. January 16, 2018. Faye L. Allen, Judge. Counsel: Keith M. Petrochko, Simoes Davila, Longwood, for Plaintiff. William J. McFarlane, III, McFarlane, Dolan & Prince, Coral Springs, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONTO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OFDEFENDANT’S CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE
This cause came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Corporate Representative, certificate date November 9, 2017. The Court having considered same, having considered the submissions by each party, having considered the evidence submitted, having reviewed the Court record and having heard oral argument made on behalf of the parties on December 6 and December 11, 2017 and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, orders as follows:
I. Background.
1. This is an action to recover personal injury protection benefits, brought by the Plaintiff, Colonial Medical Centers, Inc., as assignee of Daunte Draper.
2. On April 25 and June 29, 2017 Plaintiff requested to depose Defendant’s corporate representative.
3. Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s request, stating: “I will not be providing dates for the deposition of John Mejia without a court order.”
4. Failing Defendant’s cooperation, Plaintiff unilaterally set the deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative, to take place on July 20, 2017.
5. Neither Defendant nor its counsel appeared for the unilaterally scheduled deposition, and a Certificate of Non-Appearance was issued by the Court Reporter.
6. Defendant’s corporate representative provided an affidavit for use in this matter.
7. Defendant contends that the policy was rescinded ab initio and therefore Plaintiff has no insurable interest in the subject policy of insurance, Plaintiff is not a beneficiary to the subject policy of insurance, and an assignment of benefits does not grant plaintiff a right to challenge policy rescission.
8. The requested deposition is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative is Granted.
2. Defendant will coordinate the deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative within a reasonable time.
