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

December 18, 2015 by admin

Insurance — Homeowners — Wind and hail damage to roof — Discovery — Non-parties — Work product privilege does not apply to file containing documents pertaining to inspection of insured residence by non-party

23
Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 415a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2305PALMTop of Form

Insurance
— Homeowners — Wind and hail damage to roof — Discovery — Non-parties —
Work product privilege does not apply to file containing documents pertaining
to inspection of insured residence by non-party that had contracted with
insured for inspection of home where documents were not prepared in
anticipation of litigation

ALRON CONSTRUCTION, LLC A/A/O MARTIN PALMA, Plaintiff, v.
FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial
Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2014-CA-10148-O. October 9, 2015.
Honorable Keith F. White, Judge. Counsel: Katie Monroe and Lee Jacobson, Hale,
Hale & Jacobson, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Nina Jacobs, Simon, Reed
& Salazar, P.A., Orlando, for Defendant.

ORDER
ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO

NON-PARTY
PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO FLORIDA

RULE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.351(B)

THIS CAUSE came on for hearing on May 20, 2015 and September
17, 2015, the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully
advised in the premises, ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows:

1. This lawsuit involves a claim for homeowners’ insurance
benefits, specifically alleged damages to the insured’s roof caused by wind and
hail.

2. After receiving notice of the claim, Defendant utilized
Donan Forensic Engineering (hereinafter “DONAN”) to perform an inspection of
the roofing structure and provide an opinion as to causation and damages, if
any.

3. After receiving the opinions of DONAN, Defendant wrote to
its insured denying the claim for insurance benefits for any claimed damages to
the roof, citing in substantial portion the findings of DONAN.

4. Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 1.351 propounded a Notice of
Production from Non-Party to DONAN seeking the entire file pertaining to the
inspection of the residence of Defendant’s insured, Martin Palma.

5. Defendant objected to entirety of the Production citing
the work product, claims file (irrelevancy) and consulting expert privileges.

6. After the original hearing, the Court ordered the
Defendant to retrieve all documents from DONAN responsive to the production and
provide them to the Court for in camera inspection.

7. After in camera inspection, Defendant’s objections are
overruled.

8. The party asserting work product privilege bears the
burden of presenting evidence that the documents sought are indeed prepared in
anticipation of litigation unless manifestly apparent on the face of the
withheld documents the privilege attaches.

9. After inspection, all of the documents reviewed do not
manifestly appear to be prepared in anticipation of litigation.

10. Defendant’s burden has not been met. Defendant did not
file any affidavits attesting to the fact that the documents were prepared in
anticipation of litigation. Argument of counsel is not enough.

11. Moreover, the documents themselves reveal that they are
not prepared in anticipation of litigation.

12. The DONAN report and the denial letter citing to the
report all were prepared prior to litigation and were used to make a
determination on the claim and thus were clearly not made in anticipation of
litigation.

13. Defendant has a contract with the insured and Defendant
performed an obligation (inspection of the home) in accord with its duties
under the contract of insurance.

14. The only way for the Court to find that these documents
were prepared in anticipation of litigation, or protected from disclosure as a
result of the creation of documents or opinions formed by a litigation consulting
expert would be if:

a.
Defendant presented evidence, under oath, that Defendant knew it was going to
deny the claim upon submission of the claim; or
 
b.
That no matter what the findings of the DONAN report were, Plaintiff would have
filed a lawsuit anyways.

15. There is no evidence of either (a) or (b) above. The
documents are merely evidence of Defendant’s performance of its obligations
under the contract of insurance and are thus discoverable.

16. At the hearing, the Court has provided Plaintiff the
documents turned over to it by the Defendant.

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