Court Opinion

ID: 9585182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:57:14.563844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:52.752594
License: Public Domain

CuRRiE, J.
{concurring). Sec. 326.12, Stats., only permits the taking of the adverse deposition of a person as an agent of a party before trial in situations where such person was such agent “at the time of the occurrence made the subject of the examination." In his opinion in Estate of Briese (1941), 238 Wis. 516, 300 N. W. 235, Mr. Justice Wick-hem points out that this prevents an attorney retained for purposes of litigation being adversely examined before trial as to occurrences taking place before his retainer. In the ordinary “mine run” automobile accident case, this would preclude the taking of the adverse examination of an attorney employed after the accident to investigate the same and prepare for possible trial, because the investigation subsequent to the accident would ordinarily not be relevant to the issues raised by the pleadings.
In the instant case, however, the investigation made by the attorneys sought to be adversely examined is relevant to the issues raised by the pleadings, they having made the original investigation in behalf of the defendant Insurance Company. Sec. 204.34 (3), Stats., provides that failure to give timely notice shall not bar liability under the policy unless the in*573surer was prejudiced or damaged thereby, the burden to establish lack of prejudice or damage being upon the person claiming liability. Therefore, the testimony of the attorneys, who originally investigated the accident in behalf of the defendant Insurance Company, as to whether the delay in giving notice in any way hindered them in their investigation efforts, would be relevant on the issue raised by the policy defense which alleged failure of the insured to give timely notice of the accident.
For this reason it was error to suppress the attempted adverse examinations. Protection to the attorney witnesses against being compelled to disclose privileged communications in violation of sec. 325.22, Stats., may be afforded by securing a proper order limiting the scope of the examinations, or by interposing proper objections during the course of the examinations to questions calling for the disclosure of privileged matter.