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
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

August 7, 2015 by admin

Insurance — Discovery — Claim file — Error to require insurer to produce documents from claim file in declaratory relief and breach of contract case not involving bad faith

22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1117b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2210RODR

Insurance — Discovery — Claim file — Error to require insurer to produce various documents from claim file in declaratory relief and breach of contract case not involving bad faith claim
 
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA WELLNESS & REHABILITATION CENTER OF SOUTH MIAMI, LLC. a/a/o HILDA RODRIGUEZ, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-249 AP. L.T. Case No. 13-009497 CC 25. April 30, 2015. On Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Don S. Cohn, Judge. Counsel: Diane H. Tutt, Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., for Petitioner. Arturo Dopazo, III, Law Offices of Arturo Dopazo, III, P.A., for Respondent.  (Before HERSCH, LUCK, AND MILIAN, JJ.)

(MILIAN, Judge.) State Farm seeks certiorari review of a non-final order requiring production of various documents from its claim file in a declaratory relief and breach of contract case with no bad faith claims. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by compelling production of certain insurer claim file materials, including file notes and various documents specific to the handling of the Assignee’s individual claim.

Where a petitioner seeks appellate relief from a trial court’s interlocutory discovery order, the petition must pass a three-prong test establishing: (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of trial, (3) that cannot be corrected on post judgment appeal.” Barker v. Barker, 909 So. 2d 333, 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D1655a]. For reasons discussed in more detail below, State Farm’s petition satisfies this test.

In cases that do not involve bad faith claims, the contents of an insurance claim file are generally not subject to discovery because they are either irrelevant, protected by the work product privilege, or both. Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121, 1123 (Fla. 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly S219c], Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D2226a], State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D1701b], Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D559b], Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 960 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D1514a].

In Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D2226a], the Court provided guidance on what types of cases lend toward protecting the claim file from discovery, and what types of claim file documents are entitled to protection. The Court determined that “[i]n considering objections to discovery requests for claims file materials, the ‘determinative issue’ is ‘what type of action’ the insured has brought.” Castle Key, 124 So. 2d at 380. Where a plaintiff seeks relief for breach of contract, a trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law in compelling disclosure of the contents of an insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute. Id. While neither party to the instant petition argues that coverage is disputed in the underlying case, there is no doubt that other substantive issues remain unresolved — namely, breach of contract and declaratory judgment issues.

As to claim file materials entitled to protection, the Court determined that file notes and various documents specific to the handling of an assignee’s claim are not discoverable in non-bad faith cases. Castle Key, 124 So. 3d at 381, n. 1., citing Nationwide Insurance Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 at 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D707a]. A review of the instant claim file confirms that it is comprised of the type of material deemed privileged in Castle Key.

For these reasons, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. Accordingly, we QUASH the lower court order requiring production of Petitioner’s claim file materials. (HERSCH and LUCK, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

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. opens in a new windowAbbey, 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