UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
DELBERT CROFT, RESPONDENT
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.
The trial court erred in compelling the production of an insurance claims file, as it is protected by the work product doctrine.
Plaintiff Croft sued his insurer, Utica, after a fire damaged his machine. Croft requested Utica's claims file, which contained employee evaluations a…
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 Work Product Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Utica petitions for a writ of certiorari, contending the trial court erred in issuing its order compelling Utica to produce its claims file for inspection by Croft, the plaintiff below. We agree and quash the order compelling discovery.
Croft was the owner of a policy issued by Utica insuring a machine owned by Croft against loss by fire. After the machine was damaged by fire, a dispute arose over whether Utica was obligated to pay under the terms of the policy. Croft filed suit. A request to produce was filed by Croft, requesting that Utica produce for his inspection the contents of its claims file. Uti-ca objected, contending that the matters contained in the file were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine. Following an in camera inspection, the trial court found that the file “contains nit privileged matters and should be made available for inspection by Counsel for the Plaintiff.”
Our examination of the contents of the claims file reveals that it contains the personal thoughts of Utica’s employees regarding evaluation of the claim and possible settlement offers. The work product doctrine clearly was designed to protect matters such as these from discovery. United States Fire Insurance Company v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The trial court erred in issuing its order compelling discovery.
Certiorari is granted and the order compelling discovery is quashed.
BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fid. & Cas. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Taylor, 525 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…hich there is therefore no basis for overcoming the work product and attorney-client privileges which would ordinarily attach to these materials. E.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Podhurst, 491 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Croft, 432 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).3 In contrast, a case like this one is totally in distinguishable from the familiar “bad faith” failure to settle or defend a third-party’s action against a liability carrier’s insureds. See Stone v. Travelers Ins. Co., 326 So.…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Am. S. Home Ins. Co., 680 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…. Kransco, 641 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); General Acc. Ins. Co. v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 562 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Fla. Min. & Materials Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 556 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Croft, 432 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Agri-Business, Inc. v. Bridges, 397 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981). However, where there exists a fiduciary relat…
-
Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Govin T. Rajan, 93 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…nas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“[Requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal.”); Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Croft, 432 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (“Our examination of the contents of the claims file reveals that it contains the personal thoughts of Utica’s employees regarding evaluation of the claim and possible settlement offers. The work product doctrine clearly was…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)