Case Name: Robert SPRINGER, Petitioner, v. Barry R. WEST, et al., Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-09-08
Citations: 769 So. 2d 1068
Docket Number: No. 5D00-1944
Parties: Robert SPRINGER, Petitioner, v. Barry R. WEST, et al., Respondents.
Judges: SAWAYA, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 769
Pages: 1068–1070

Head Matter:
Robert SPRINGER, Petitioner, v. Barry R. WEST, et al., Respondents.
No. 5D00-1944.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Sept. 8, 2000.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 2000.
Jamie Billotte Moses and Karen L. Ave-rill, of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner.
Kenneth J. McKenna, Orlando, for Respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Robert Springer, is a defendant in a lawsuit arising from an automobile accident and seeks a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order compelling him to answer interrogatories regarding the relationship between his trial expert and his liability insurer. We deny the writ, but write to explain why such an inquiry is proper.
Petitioner argues that the interrogatories exceed the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii), which establishes the scope of inquiry allowed of experts. However, in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla.1999), the Florida Supreme Court held that the rule was not intended to shield a party from inquiries regarding the extent of the party's relationship with an expert witness. Id. at 999. Although petitioner argues that Boecher does not apply, because the interrogatories in this case seek information regarding the relationship between his insurer, a nonparty, and the expert, whereas in Boecher, the insurer was a party, we reject that argument.
Where an insurer provides a defense for its insured and is acting as the insured's agent, the insurer's relationship to an expert is discoverable from the insured. To hold otherwise would render Boecher meaningless in all but a small class of cases. Similarly, a defendant may question a plaintiff about any relationship between his or her attorney and the plaintiffs trial expert. In both cases, the information sought is relevant to the witness's bias and will enhance the truth-seeking function and fairness of the trial, as intended by Boecher. 733 So.2d at 998.
PETITION DENIED.
SAWAYA, J., concurs.
HARRIS, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
GRIFFIN, J., dissents, with opinion.