Brakhage Ex Rel. Brakhage v. Graff

I respectfully dissent for the reason that I would follow the majority rule across the country and require the production of the statement given by Kathryn Graff to her insurance investigator. This statement was in no way a part of the work product of the defendant’s attorneys. See, Wilson v. Borchard, 370 Mich. 404, 122 N. W. 2d 57; Alseike v. Miller, 196 Kan. 547, 412 P. 2d 1007; Babcock v. Jackson, 243 N. Y. S. 2d 715, 40 Misc. 2d 757; Jacques v. Cassidy, 28 Conn. Supp. 212, 257 A. 2d 29; Herbst v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co. (Iowa), 10 F. R. D. 14.