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
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • 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

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

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. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982