Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 31, 2014 by admin

Fourth DCA reiterates attorney / client privilege between carrier and its own counsel in underlying action remains intact for purposes of later bad faith action

39 Fla. L. Weekly D2215b


Insurance — Bad faith — Discovery — Attorney-client privilege — Documents
from insurer’s attorney’s litigation file in underlying coverage case — Trial
court departed from essential requirements of law in requiring production of
attorney-client privileged material on grounds that the privileged information
did not pertain to bad faith aspects of case

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THOMAS A. MOULTROP and
PATRICIA GUY MOULTROP, Respondents. 4th District. Case No. 4D14-1844. October
22, 2014. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Roger B. Colton, Senior Judge; L.T. Case
No. 50 2009 CA 42658MB. Counsel: Katina M. Hardee, B. Richard Young, and Adam A.
Duke of Young, Bill, Roumbos & Boles, P.A., Miami, for petitioner. Bard D.
Rockenbach of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; William E.
Johnson of William E. Johnson, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Todd S. Stewart of the
Law Offices of Todd S. Stewart, P.A., Jupiter, for respondents.
(Per Curiam.) GEICO General Insurance Company petitions for a writ of
certiorari to review an order that allows discovery of attorney-client
privileged communication in a bad faith action.
Following an in camera inspection, a special master determined that a number
of documents from the insurer’s attorney’s litigation file in the underlying
coverage case were privileged but discoverable in this bad faith action. The
special master accepted respondents’ argument that attorney-client information
from the underlying suit would be discoverable unless it pertained to bad faith
aspects of the case.
We agree with petitioner that the order is contrary to Genovese v.
Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.
, 74 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2011), and
departs from the essential requirements of the law. Availability of the
attorney-client privilege does not depend on whether this is a bad faith case or
whether the information related to legal advice about bad faith. “[W]hen an
insured party brings a bad faith claim against its insurer, the insured may not
discover those privileged communications that occurred between the insurer and
its counsel during the underlying action.” Id. at 1068. Absent an
exception, such as when the insurer places counsel’s advice at issue,
attorney-client privileged information from the underlying suit is not
discoverable in a bad faith case. Id. at 1068-69.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the portion of the order that
requires production of attorney-client privileged material on the grounds that
the privileged information did not pertain to the bad faith aspects of this
case. (Gross, Taylor and Levine, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982