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
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • 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

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

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. Abbey, 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