BALBOA INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM C. VANSCOOTER AND JOHN A. VANHYNING, 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.
Balboa Insurance Company sought a writ of certiorari to review a circuit court order compelling disclosure of an insurance claim file. The appellate court held that the disclosure order was premature because the threshold issue of the insurer's coverage obligation had not yet been resolved.
The court held that the order compelling disclosure was premature and improper because the coverage obligation issue must first be determined. Additionally, the petition for certiorari was timely because the disclosure issue was not ripe for appellate review until the contingency of resolving the summary judgment motion had occurred.
[1] An order compelling the production of an insurance claim file is premature when the issue of the insurer's obligation to provide coverage has not yet been determined.
[2] A petition for writ of certiorari is timely when filed within thirty days of the circuit court's order compelling disclosure, even if an earlier ruling indicated a potent…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We agree with Balboa that the order compelling disclosure of this file is premature because the issue of Balboa's obligation to provide coverage has not yet been determined.”
Establishes the core holding that disclosure cannot be ordered before the coverage threshold issue is resolved.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVanHyning obtained a judgment against VanScooter for injuries from an automobile accident. Balboa denied coverage to VanScooter and filed a declarator…
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 Ripeness For Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Balboa Insurance Company petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the circuit court compelling production of an insurance claim file. We grant the petition.
Respondent John VanHyning obtained a judgment against William VanScooter for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Balboa denied coverage to VanScooter and filed an action for declaratory judgment to resolve the coverage question. VanHyning, as assignee of any cause of action VanScooter may have had against Balboa, intervened in this proceeding and filed a counterclaim alleging a bad faith refusal to provide coverage. He then successfully argued for production by Balboa of the VanScooter claim file, to which Balboa objected based upon work product and other privileges.
We agree with Balboa that the order compelling disclosure of this file is premature because the issue of Balboa’s obligation to provide coverage has not yet been determined. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Swanson, 506 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
One other issue merits discussion. VanHyning claims that Balboa’s petition is untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the circuit court ordered disclosure of the file. We disagree. It is true that in December, 1987, approximately three months before the instant petition, the court ruled that VanHyning was entitled to the documents unless Balboa prevailed on its upcoming motion for summary judgment. However, it was not until February 17, 1988, after determining that Balboa was not entitled to summary judgment, that the circuit court entered its order compelling production of the documents. The petition for writ of certiorari was filed in this court March 16, 1988. VanHyning characterizes the February 17 order as “purely ministerial.” However, we believe that the issue of disclosure was not ripe for appellate review until the speci fied contingency had taken place, that being the resolution of Balboa’s pending motion for summary judgment.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and this case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara de Comercio Latino-Americana DE LOS Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…documents, and work product when coverage was at issue). This same reasoning and authority necessarily applies to the testimony that the Scottsdale corporate representative will be asked to provide at his or her deposition. See Balboa v. Vanscooter, 526 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The corporate representative may testify, but cannot be compelled to testify as to the privileged matters. This declaratory action is a first-party suit regarding insurance coverage. Until this question of coverage is determined,…
-
Superior Ins. Co. v. Holden, 642 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…e is at issue in the present case. We agree with Superior that the order compelling disclosure of its claims file is premature because the issue of Superior’s obligation to provide coverage has not yet been determined. Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). If the question of coverage were not at issue, the Hol-dens would be entitled to discovery of the…
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 673 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…lished. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wheeland, 648 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Superior Ins. Co. v. Holden, 642 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lovell, 530 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (discovery of an insurer’s files impermissible prior to establishment of coverage in a first party bad faith action); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lach v. Lach, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)