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

February 12, 2016 by admin

Insurance — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in ordering disclosure of insurer’s claims file and related materials prior to any coverage determination

41 Fla. L. Weekly D352b

Top of Form

Insurance
— Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in
ordering disclosure of insurer’s claims file and related materials prior to any
coverage determination

THE DOCTORS COMPANY, Petitioner, v. JAMES RANDALL THOMAS
a/k/a Randy Thomas, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mildred Thomas,
deceased, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lucy Thomas,
deceased, and as assignee of Kenneth W. Backstrand, M.D. and Kenneth W.
Backstrand & Associates, M.D., P.A.; Kenneth W. Backstrand, M.D. and
Kenneth W. Backstrand and Associates, M.D., P.A., Respondents. 2nd District.
Case No. 2D15-3052. Opinion filed February 5, 2016. Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Lee County; James R. Thompson, Senior
Judge. Counsel: Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford,
P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Petitioner. Roy D. Wasson and Annabel C. Majewski of
Wasson & Associates, Chartered, Miami, for Respondent James Randall Thomas.
No appearance for remaining Respondents.

(CRENSHAW, Judge.) The Doctors Company petitions this court
for a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order that denies its motion for
protective order and compels the production of The Doctors Company’s claims
file and other investigative documents prior to any insurance coverage
determination. Because the trial court’s order directs The Doctors Company to
turn over protected materials before any coverage determination has been made,
we grant the petition and quash the order.

This now consolidated lawsuit originated as a declaratory
judgment action wherein The Doctors Company sought a declaration concerning its
obligations under an insurance policy issued to an insured after the insured
entered into an unauthorized settlement with a tort claimant. James Randall
Thomas, the personal representative of the estate of the original tort
claimant, subsequently filed an action asserting various claims against The
Doctors Company including claims for both statutory and common-law bad faith.
After the actions were consolidated, Thomas sought discovery of information
related to The Doctors Company’s claims materials while the declaratory action
remained pending.

We agree with The Doctors Company that the order compelling
disclosure of its claims file and other related materials prior to any coverage
determination departs from the essential requirements of the law. See e.g.,
Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Rajan, 93 So. 3d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA
2012) (“[A]n order compelling production of an insurer’s claim file when the
issue of coverage is unresolved has been held to constitute a departure from
the essential requirements of law for which certiorari relief is
appropriate.”); Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So. 2d 779, 779 (Fla.
2d DCA 1988); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De
Los Estados Unidos, Inc.
, 813 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Such
premature disclosure results in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on
plenary appeal. See e.g., Old Republic Nat’l. Title Ins. Co. v.
HomeAmerican Credit, Inc.
, 844 So. 2d 818, 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order under
review.

Petition granted; order quashed. (KELLY and KHOUZAM, 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