41 Fla. L. Weekly D278aop of Form
Insurance
— Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in
ordering insurer to produce portions of its adjusters’ claims files to medical
provider in first-party non-bad-faith cases
— Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in
ordering insurer to produce portions of its adjusters’ claims files to medical
provider in first-party non-bad-faith cases
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,
vs. PREMIER DIAGNOSTIC CENTERS, LLC, (A/A/O SHERRY DUJON, DOLORES LANCASTER,
MARIA LOPEZ), Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D15-1871. L.T. Case Nos.
13-266 AP, 13-267 AP, 13-278 AP. Opinion filed January 27, 2016. A Writ of
Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Appellate Division,
George A. Sarduy, Valerie R. Manno Schurr and Lisa S. Walsh, Judges. Counsel:
Kirschbaum, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire and Nancy W. Gregoire, (Fort
Lauderdale); Roig Lawyers and Christine Louissaint, (Deerfield Beach), for
petitioner. Marlene S. Reiss, for respondent.
vs. PREMIER DIAGNOSTIC CENTERS, LLC, (A/A/O SHERRY DUJON, DOLORES LANCASTER,
MARIA LOPEZ), Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D15-1871. L.T. Case Nos.
13-266 AP, 13-267 AP, 13-278 AP. Opinion filed January 27, 2016. A Writ of
Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Appellate Division,
George A. Sarduy, Valerie R. Manno Schurr and Lisa S. Walsh, Judges. Counsel:
Kirschbaum, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire and Nancy W. Gregoire, (Fort
Lauderdale); Roig Lawyers and Christine Louissaint, (Deerfield Beach), for
petitioner. Marlene S. Reiss, for respondent.
(Before SUAREZ, C.J., and WELLS and LOGUE, JJ.)
(WELLS, Judge.) State Farm petitions for issuance of this
court’s writ quashing three trial court orders requiring State Farm, in three
first-party non-bad-faith cases, to produce portions of its adjusters’ claims
files to a medical care provider. Because this and other courts have repeatedly
held that an insurer’s claim file is not discoverable in cases such as this, we
find not only that the wrong law was applied below but also that an irreparable
departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in manifest
injustice has occurred as well. See Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez,
124 So. 3d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“Because the trial court order at issue
directed the production of Castle Key’s ‘claims file’ when the issue of
coverage is still in dispute, the order departs from the essential requirements
of law.”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2013) (cautioning that a trial court departs from the essential
requirements of law in permitting discovery of claim file materials, including
adjuster’s notes in the claim file, while the coverage litigation has not
concluded); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 86 So. 3d 1198, 1198
(Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (recognizing the claim file protection); State Farm Fla.
Ins. Co. v. Seville Place Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 74 So. 3d 105, 108 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2011) (en banc) (“For an appellate court to review a nonfinal order by
petition for certiorari, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court
departed from the essential requirements of law, thereby causing irreparable
injury which cannot be adequately remedied on appeal following final judgment.”
(quoting Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164, 1166 (Fla. 2000))); Nationwide
Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
(concluding that “requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the
litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be
adequately addressed on appeal”) (quoting Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009))); Old Republic
Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. HomeAmerican Credit, Inc., 844 So. 2d 818, 819
(Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“[A] party is not entitled to discovery of an insurer’s
claim file . . . in an action for insurance benefits . . . until the insurer’s
obligation to provide coverage has been established.”); State Farm Fla. Ins.
Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (confirming that an
insurer’s claim files, investigative reports, and notes “are either irrelevant
to the first-party dispute that this case presents or are privileged work
product”); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los
Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“When the
issue of insurance coverage is unresolved and at issue in pending court
proceedings, a trial court must not order an insurer to produce its claims
files and other work product documents.”); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.
Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (concluding “[i]n this
proceeding for certiorari, we quash in its entirety an order of production upon
the holdings that (a) State Farm’s claim files, manuals, guidelines and
documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant to the first
party dispute involved in this case”); see also Coyne v. Schwartz,
Gold, Cohen, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A., 715 So. 2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1998) (“Orders compelling production of matters claimed to be protected by
the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine present the required
potential for irreparable harm.”); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Signorellli,
681 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (explaining that the work product
privilege can apply to “investigative materials” if they were compiled “in
response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim”).1
court’s writ quashing three trial court orders requiring State Farm, in three
first-party non-bad-faith cases, to produce portions of its adjusters’ claims
files to a medical care provider. Because this and other courts have repeatedly
held that an insurer’s claim file is not discoverable in cases such as this, we
find not only that the wrong law was applied below but also that an irreparable
departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in manifest
injustice has occurred as well. See Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez,
124 So. 3d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“Because the trial court order at issue
directed the production of Castle Key’s ‘claims file’ when the issue of
coverage is still in dispute, the order departs from the essential requirements
of law.”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2013) (cautioning that a trial court departs from the essential
requirements of law in permitting discovery of claim file materials, including
adjuster’s notes in the claim file, while the coverage litigation has not
concluded); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 86 So. 3d 1198, 1198
(Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (recognizing the claim file protection); State Farm Fla.
Ins. Co. v. Seville Place Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 74 So. 3d 105, 108 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2011) (en banc) (“For an appellate court to review a nonfinal order by
petition for certiorari, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court
departed from the essential requirements of law, thereby causing irreparable
injury which cannot be adequately remedied on appeal following final judgment.”
(quoting Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164, 1166 (Fla. 2000))); Nationwide
Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
(concluding that “requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the
litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be
adequately addressed on appeal”) (quoting Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009))); Old Republic
Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. HomeAmerican Credit, Inc., 844 So. 2d 818, 819
(Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“[A] party is not entitled to discovery of an insurer’s
claim file . . . in an action for insurance benefits . . . until the insurer’s
obligation to provide coverage has been established.”); State Farm Fla. Ins.
Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (confirming that an
insurer’s claim files, investigative reports, and notes “are either irrelevant
to the first-party dispute that this case presents or are privileged work
product”); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los
Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“When the
issue of insurance coverage is unresolved and at issue in pending court
proceedings, a trial court must not order an insurer to produce its claims
files and other work product documents.”); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.
Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (concluding “[i]n this
proceeding for certiorari, we quash in its entirety an order of production upon
the holdings that (a) State Farm’s claim files, manuals, guidelines and
documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant to the first
party dispute involved in this case”); see also Coyne v. Schwartz,
Gold, Cohen, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A., 715 So. 2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1998) (“Orders compelling production of matters claimed to be protected by
the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine present the required
potential for irreparable harm.”); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Signorellli,
681 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (explaining that the work product
privilege can apply to “investigative materials” if they were compiled “in
response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim”).1
Accordingly we issue the writ sought and quash the decision
of the court below affirming the three orders at issue requiring State Farm to
produce its adjusters’ notes to Premier Diagnostic Centers, LLC.
of the court below affirming the three orders at issue requiring State Farm to
produce its adjusters’ notes to Premier Diagnostic Centers, LLC.
Petition granted.
__________________
1In reaching this result we find Marshalls
of MA, Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), which did not
involve an insurer’s claim file or any portion thereof, to be inapposite.
of MA, Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), which did not
involve an insurer’s claim file or any portion thereof, to be inapposite.
* *
*
*