AGRI-BUSINESS, INC. AND FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
CALVIN BRIDGES, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Agri-Business and Florida Farm Bureau Insurance sought review of a deputy commissioner's order compelling disclosure of the carrier's case file in a workers' compensation claim. The court held that excess liability insurance cases are not analogous to workers' compensation cases, and that the claimant failed to demonstrate compelling necessity to overcome work product protection.
The court held that excess liability insurance cases are not analogous to workers' compensation cases because in excess liability cases the insurance company acts on behalf of the insured, whereas no such relationship exists between claimant and carrier in workers' compensation cases. Work product protection applies in workers' compensation cases unless the requesting party demonstrates compelling necessity under established criteria.
[1] Excess liability insurance cases are not analogous to workers' compensation cases for the purpose of compelling disclosure of an insurance carrier's case file.
[2] Disclosure of an opposing party's work product may be compelled upon a showing of compelling necessity, such as when the underlying evidence is damaged, inaccessible, or…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In an excess liability case the insurance company participates not only on its own behalf, but also on behalf of its insured. Therefore, the insured is entitled to all materials and documents prepared by the insurance company while acting on behalf of the insured... No such relationship exists between the claimant and the carrier in a workman's compensation case.”
Establishes why excess liability precedent is inapplicable to workers' compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA workers' compensation claimant (Bridges) sought discovery of the insurance carrier's entire case file, arguing it may contain evidence of bad faith …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Law Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The court has considered the petition for writ of common law certiorari, the response to the petition and the reply to that response. Petitioners seek review of an order of the deputy commissioner compelling the disclosure of the carrier’s entire case file on the ground the file may contain evidence of the carrier’s bad faith in the handling of the claim.
Respondent argues that since there is no case law in the area of bad faith in workman’s compensation cases, excess liability of insurance carrier cases involving bad faith or recklessness are analogous. With this we disagree. In an excess liability case the insurance company participates not only on its own behalf, but also on behalf of its insured.
Therefore, the insured is entitled to all materials and documents prepared by the insurance company while acting on behalf of the insured. Stone v. Travelers Insurance Company, 326 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). No such relationship exists between the claimant and the carrier in a workman’s compensation case.
Therefore, the excess liability insurance cases are not analogous.
Respondent points out that when a party requesting production demonstrates a compelling necessity for the documents to be exhibited in order to reach the merits of the case, disclosure of the work product of an opposing party may be compelled. Such a necessity may be established by showing that: (1) the underlying evidence has been damaged, disassembled, changed, or is inaccessible to the same examination by respondent; (2) that the withholding of the information and the documents sought would defeat the interest of justice; or (3) that the information is not as readily available to respondent as it was to petitioner. Travelers Insurance Company v. Fields, 262 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
The record in the present case clearly reflects that no such showing was made before the deputy commissioner.
Therefore, there is no competent substantial evidence which can support the deputy commissioner’s finding that the present case falls within an exception to the work product exclusionary rule.
The order compelling discovery is quashed and the case remanded to the deputy commissioner for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WENTWORTH, J., and LILES, WOOD-IE A. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur. JOANOS, J., concurring specially.
JO ANOS, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority that work product is not subject to discovery except upon a showing of compelling necessity as set out in Travelers Indemnity Company v. Fields, 262 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). However, I would suggest that in a proceeding seeking attorney’s fees based upon an allegation of bad faith in a workers’ compensation case, the claimant should also be required to make some preliminary showing that there is reasonable cause to believe that bad faith has occurred.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), which appears in the August 1985 issue of the Journal of the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers at 11-12. See also Travelers Insurance Company v. Habelow, 405 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), and Agri-Business, Inc. v. Bridges, 397 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).…
-
Anchor Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…ince the trial court found that the documents are not work product, she apparently did not determine whether respondents might be able to overcome the qualified privilege against disclosure of work product. See, e.g., Agri-Business, Inc. v. Bridges, 397 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981). Accordingly, our decision is without prejudice to respondents to attempt such a showing. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and this case is remanded to the trial court for fur…
-
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…o., 326 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). On the other hand, the plaintiff cannot compel disclosure of the carrier’s work product, its claim file, where the cause of action is a first party claim for coverage under the policy. Agri-Business v. Bridges, 397 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The reason for the distinction is that a claim for bad faith will lie when a carrier fails properly to perform its fiduciary obligation to defend, but a claim for bad faith cannot be prosecuted where the parties simply disagree…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brainard Stone and Beulah Stone v. Travelers Ins. Co., 326 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Fields, 262 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)