47 Fla. L. Weekly D2560a VAN SANT LAW, LLC, Appellant, v. AIR ISAAC, LLC, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D21-3714. December 2, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; George M. Jirotka, Judge. Counsel: David L. Luck of Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Coral Gables, for Appellant. Steven Scott Stephens and John […]
Articles
Insurance — Homeowners — Bad faith — Discovery — Attorney-client privilege — Proper standard — Appeals — Certiorari — Petition seeking review of order approving special magistrate’s recommendations compelling discovery of documents that special magistrate reviewed in camera, which included claims materials created prior to final judgment on coverage dispute, and leaving insurer to determine what other documents in its possession are required to be produced in accordance with the order while filing an updated privilege log for documents it decides to withhold based on attorney-client privilege — Because trial court may never decide to require disclosure of documents other than those reviewed by special magistrate, the petition is premature as to those documents — Magistrate’s order did not improperly apply a need-based analysis to documents claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege — Language of order recognizes that the only source of information as to the central issue of the bad faith litigation may be insurer’s litigation file, but does not indicate that the attorney-client privilege does not apply simply where the other party has a need for it — Magistrate’s order did not improperly consider relevance of documents in determining attorney-client privilege — Statement regarding relevance in magistrate’s order was made in response to insurer’s argument that documents of outside counsel are irrelevant and did not indicate that attorney-client privilege did not apply to certain documents simply because they were relevant — Magistrate’s order did not improperly find that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications between an insurer and its counsel regarding the weight of legal authority on coverage issues — Magistrate correctly ruled that materials relating to the investigation of the underlying claim are discoverable if those materials do not involve the rendering of legal advice — Petition denied
47 Fla. L. Weekly D2569a AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. JOHN ROBERT SEBO, individually and as trustee under Revocable Trust Agreement of John Robert Sebo, dated November 4, 2004, Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D21-3270. December 5, 2022. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Collier County; Lauren L. Brodie, […]
Torts — Automobile accident — Discovery — Non-parties — Cell phone records — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by compelling disclosure of a sweeping range of information from defendant’s cell phone records by her cell phone carrier without first determining relevance and balancing the need for the information against defendant’s privacy rights, and without conducting an in camera review of the records — Departure constitutes irreparable harm because the discovery requested implicates defendant’s right to privacy — Defendant was not required to file motion for protective order to preserve her argument that records were not subject to production — Order quashed except to the extent that the order allows discovery regarding whether defendant was using her cell phone close to or at the time of the accident
47 Fla. L. Weekly D2384a DENISE LAUREEN WHARRAN, Petitioner, v. SUEN ANGHARA MORGAN, Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D22-395. November 18, 2022. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Caroline Tesche Arkin, Judge. Counsel: Jeffrey D. Jensen of Unice Salzman Jensen, P.A., Trinity, for Petitioner. Nicholas A. Shannin and Carol […]
Insurance — Automobile — Underinsured motorist — Damages — Remittitur — New trial — Trial court erred in relying on section 768.043 in granting insurer’s motion for new trial based on alleged excessive damages award where insurer’s initial remittitur motion was denied as legally insufficient, and its amended remittitur motion was prohibited by rule — In the absence of a properly filed remittitur motion, insurer’s motion for new trial was subject to common law standard — While both prongs of common law test were also referenced in trial court’s discussion in new-trial order, trial court’s analysis clearly hinged on factors set forth in section 768.043 — Remand for reconsideration of motion for new trial based on correct legal standard
47 Fla. L. Weekly D2380a AMY MARINEC, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D20-3351. November 18, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Linda Allan, Judge. Counsel: Thomas J. Seider of Brannock Humphries & Berman, Tampa, for Appellant. Jennifer C. Worden and Daniel A. Martinez of Martinez Denbo, […]
Torts — Discovery — Interrogatories — Work product — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by ordering defendant to provide a verified interrogatory answer based on its knowledge of the incident, including facts learned from its employees and/or agents, after plaintiff had moved for a better response to her interrogatory asking defendant to describe how the underlying incident happened — Plaintiff was not required to prove need and undue hardship where plaintiff was not seeking production of the actual work product materials defendant had prepared, but the otherwise-discoverable factual information contained in the materials — Work product doctrine does not safeguard discovery of underlying facts gathered in work product materials — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by not limiting compelled production to the facts
47 Fla. L. Weekly D2373a WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., Petitioner, v. LISA ALESI, Respondent. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-1375. L.T. Case No. 2020-CA-002845-O. November 18, 2022. Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Jeffrey L. Ashton, Judge. Counsel: Stephanie M. Simm, of Bowman and Brooke, LLP, […]