WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
NEVA PRODUCTS, INC. AND DAVID AVEN, 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.
The court quashed an order compelling an insurer to produce pre-suit portions of its claim file and investigation records, holding that such materials constitute protected work product under Florida law.
An insurer's accident investigation file constitutes work product protected from discovery even when prepared prior to the filing of a lawsuit.
[1] An insurer's accident investigation file and claim records constitute attorney work product protected from discovery under Florida law even when prepared prior to the fil…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWest American Insurance Company was ordered to produce portions of its claim file and related records dated before the suit was filed. The insurer sou…
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
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order compelling petitioner to produce those portions of its claim file and related records that are dated prior to the filing of this suit. Our decision is controlled by Florida Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy, 471 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), in which this court held that the contents of an insurer’s accident investigation file constituted work product even though it was prepared prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Accord Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1952); Walt Disney World Co. v. Cotto, 462 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gonyea, 455 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); New Life Acres, Inc. v. Strickland, 436 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1972); City of Sarasota v. Colbert, 97 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957); but see Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Since certain portions of the disputed order did not involve work product, we direct the trial court to enter an amended order consistent with this decision.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. HOY, 927 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…er for production, GEICO filed its petition for certio-rari review. DISCUSSION A. The Legal Background Generally speaking, “the contents of an insurer’s accident investigation file constitute[] work product.” W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Neva Prods., Inc., 490 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). A court cannot compel disclosure of the file in a “first party claim for coverage under the policy.” U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So. 2d 783, 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). “ ‘The analysis differs however when an…
-
Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 291 So. 3d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). See also, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Neva Prods., Inc., 490 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 927 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cook, 744 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Michigan Millers…
Authorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1952)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assocs., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Fla. Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy, 471 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- City OF Sarasota v. Colbert, 97 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gonyea, 455 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Adela Davis v. Jewish Vocational Rehabilitation Workshop, 271 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1972)
- NEW Life Acres, Inc. v. Strickland, 436 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Walt Disney World Co. v. Cotto, 462 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)