The appellate court found that the trial court had not abused its discretion when it ordered an auto insurer to produce a corporate representative to testify regarding the insurer's affirmative defense that its insured had failed to mitigate his damages arising from the underlying accident even if the information was available from more convenient and less burdensome sources and even if the information possessed by the corporate representative was subject to attorney client and work product privileges.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login