PENELOPE R. KUJAWA, AS BENEFICIARY OF JOHN A. KUJAWA, DECEASED, PETITIONER,
v.
MANHATTAN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether an insurance company's attorney-client privilege and work product immunity could be overcome in a bad faith claim action. The Court held that an adversarial relationship, not a fiduciary one, exists between insurer and beneficiary, and that the bad faith statute did not abolish these protections.
The insurer is entitled to attorney-client privilege and work product immunity to the same extent as any other litigant. The relationship between the insurer and beneficiary is adversarial, not fiduciary, and the legislature did not intend the bad faith statute to abolish these protections. Work product immunity may yield to discovery only upon an appropriate showing under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, but attorney-client matters remain protected.
[1] An insurer and a policyholder are in an adversarial, not a fiduciary, relationship when the policyholder sues for bad faith processing of a claim.
[2] The creation of a statutory cause of action for bad faith insurance claim processing does not abolish the attorney-client privilege or work product immunity.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the legislature in creating the bad faith cause of action did not evince an intent to abolish the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity”
Establishes that statutory bad faith claims do not automatically overcome traditional privilege protections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Kujawa died in an airline crash, and his beneficiary (petitioner) filed a claim under his life insurance policy issued by Manhattan National Life…
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 Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review Manhattan National Life Insurance Co. v. Kujawa, 522 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), to resolve conflict with Fidelity and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 525 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 528 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1988).
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. Respondent issued a life insurance policy on John Kujawa which named petitioner as beneficiary. After John was killed in an airline crash, respondent initially declined to pay. Petitioner sued on the policy and for bad faith processing of the claim under section 624.155(l)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1985).
Respondent then paid on the policy. Petitioner served a request to produce all files pertaining to the handling of the claim and the trial court ordered production without regard to the attorney-client privilege or work product immunity.
On appeal, the district court concluded there was no fiduciary relationship between the parties and that the statute creating the bad faith cause of action did not abolish the attorney-client privilege or work product immunity. The court held that respondent was entitled to the privilege and immunity to the same extent as any other litigant.
We have considered the arguments of the parties and amicus curiae and are persuaded that the district court was correct in concluding that an adversarial, not a fiduciary, relationship existed between the parties and that the legislature in creating the bad faith cause of action did not evince an intent to abolish the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity. We point out, as did the district court below, that the holding of absolute immunity from disclosure extends only to matters arising under the attorney-client privilege. Files protected by the work product immunity only may yield to inspection if an appropriate showing under rule 1.280(b)(2), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, can be made. Even this rule, however, precludes discovery of attorney-client matters. We approve the decision below and disapprove Fidelity and Casualty Insurance Co.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion.
SHAW, Justice,
dissenting.
The legislative creation of a bad faith cause of action, section 624.155(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), is nullified if the claimant is denied discovery of the sole source of proof. I agree with the reasoning of Chief Judge Schwartz in Fidelity and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 525 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 528 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1988), and would adopt the contrary rale that the insurer’s good faith obligation to process claims establishes a fiduciary relationship with the insured, thus making the claim processing file discoverable under the bad faith count.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (29 total)
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)…discovery rules applicable to statutory first-party and third-party bad faith actions, whether statutory or common law, developed by Florida courts, and generated by interpretations of our decision in Kujawa v. Manhattan National Life Insurance Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989). For the reasons set forth herein, we quash the decision of the district court below, remand the case to the district court for further consideration consistent with this opinion, clarify the applicable law and recede from our decision in…1 / 5
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…state Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1995); Fidelity & Cas. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Taylor, 525 So. 2d 908, 909 (Fla. Bd DCA 1987), rev. denied, 528 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1988), disapproved on other grounds, Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989), and (b) the defendant’s surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were protected by the work product privilege. See Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1970); Waste Management, Inc. of Florida v. Sou…
-
Rubio v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. & Michele Vincent-Belizaire, 662 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…wever, has since held that the insurance claim file is no longer automatically discoverable on the bad faith claim as to matters which fall within the attorney-client privilege and the work product privilege. Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989). That being so, it is plain that the underpinnings for the Mayor, Lovell, and Lugassy decisions are no longer viable, and that such decisions no longer state the law. Id. at 554 (emphasis added). See also United Serv. Auto. Asso. v. Gran…
Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fid. & Cas. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Taylor, 525 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Manhattan Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Penelope R. Kujawa, 522 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)