WISEMAN
v.
PROGRESSIVE PALOVERDE INSURANCE COMPANY

M.D. Fla. | 2023-02-22
No. 8:21-cv-02743
District Court, M.D. Florida (2023)

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.


Holding

The court held that attorney-client privilege does not preclude discovery of an insured's litigation file in a bad-faith action against an insurer.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued his insurer for bad faith after an automobile accident. Plaintiff subpoenaed the underlying tortfeasor's attorneys for depositions and …

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.


Opinion of the Court

(Doc. 34, p. 2). Attorney Sesler and Attorney Yates now request that the court quash or modify the subpoenas because they argue the requested information contains attorney-client privileged communications not subject to disclosure absent a waiver of that privilege by Mr. Rush. (Doc. 34). The parties oppose Attorney Sesler’s and Attorney Yates’s motion and argue the information requested is subject to discovery in a bad-faith action despite claims of privilege.1 (Doc. 35).

II. ANALYSIS

Because this is a diversity action, resolution of this claim of the attorney-client privilege requires application of Florida law. GAB Bus. Serv., Inc. v. Syndicate 627, 809 F. 2d 755, 762 (11th Cir. 1987) (“state law determines privilege when state law supplies rule of decision”). Florida courts have consistently held that the plaintiff in a third-party bad-faith action against an insurance company for failure to settle for policy limits is entitled to the entire litigation file of the insured’s counsel from the inception of the lawsuit until the date the judgment was entered in the underlying action. See Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Aqua Jet Filter Sys., Inc., 620 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Stone v. Travelers Ins. Co., 326 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 325 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1976). The courts reasoned that the plaintiff stands in the same posture as the insured and is, therefore, entitled to full discovery. See Cont’l Cas. Co., 620 So. 2d at 1142. Therefore, attorney-client privilege does not preclude the requested communications.

III. CONCLUSION

Non-party Attorney Sesler’s and Attorney Yates’s motion to quash or modify subpoenas for deposition duces tecum (Doc. 34) is DENIED.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on February 22, 2023.

Aranda. Arno Sasone_

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Footnotes
1 To avoid delay, non-party counsel and Mr. Wiseman’s counsel conferred and agreed the depositions would proceed and without the receipt of a waiver of the privilege from Mr. Rush. (See Doc. 34, p. 4). However, the deponents would not produce the text messages and would assert the attorney-client privilege. (Id.). Counsel agreed this would avoid delay and provide the parties the opportunity to obtain a ruling on attorney-client privilege issues after the depositions were concluded. (Id.).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw