ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, PETITIONER,
v.
ZAYAS MEN'S SHOP, INC., 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.
Royal Insurance Company sought to abate a bad-faith insurance claim pending resolution of the underlying breach of contract claim. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, denied the petition for writ of certiorari, holding that its prior decisions requiring abatement were no longer viable in light of the Florida Supreme Court's ruling limiting discovery of insurance claim files to non-privileged materials.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. The court held that its prior decisions requiring abatement of bad-faith claims (in Mayor, Lovell, and Lugassy) are no longer viable because the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that insurance claim files are not automatically discoverable for privileged materials.
[1] A claim for bad-faith failure to settle an insurance claim may not be pursued until the underlying claim for breach of the insurance contract is resolved in favor of the…
[2] The attorney-client privilege and work product privilege protect certain information within an insurance claim file from discovery in a bad-faith claim.
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“one of our primary bases for so holding was that such a failure to abate would otherwise result in irreparable harm to the defendant/insurer, namely, that the latter would necessarily be required in this joint action to disclose in discovery a vital item solely on the bad-faith claim which it would not otherwise be required to disclose on the breach of the insurance contract claim, to wit: the insurance claim file.”
Explains the court's previous rationale for requiring abatement based on discovery concerns
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoyal Insurance Company, the defendant/insurer, moved to abate claims filed by Zayas Men's Shop, Inc., the plaintiff/insured, alleging bad-faith failu…
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 Abatement Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari which seeks review of a trial court order denying the defendant/insurer Royal Insurance Company of America’s motion to abate the plaintiff/insured Zayas Men’s Shop, Inc.’s claims below for bad-faith failure to settle an insurance claim, see Sections 624.155, 626.9541(l)(i)(3), Florida Statutes (1987), until its underlying claim below for breach of the insurance contract is resolved in its favor. We deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Although we have held under similar circumstances that a writ of certiorari lies to quash such a trial court order and to require the abatement of the bad-faith claim, see Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Lugassy, 538 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Mayor, 538 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lovell, 530 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); one of our primary bases for so holding was that such a failure to abate would otherwise result in irreparable harm to the defendant/insurer, namely, that the latter would necessarily be required in this joint action to disclose in discovery a vital item solely on the bad-faith claim which it would not otherwise be required to disclose on the breach of the insurance contract claim, to wit: the insurance claim file. See Fidelity & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 525 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 528 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1988).
The Florida Supreme Court, however, 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 work product privilege. Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989)(approving 522 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)).
This 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.
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rubio v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. & Michele Vincent-Belizaire, 662 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…red motorist case dealing with abatement of the bad faith claim and the discoverability of the insurance claim file while the underlying liability suit was pending. Colonial Penn was quashed by this court in Royal Ins. Co. v. Zayas Men’s Shop, Inc., 551 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), a breach of insurance contract case. The court stated: Although we have held under similar circumstances that a writ of certiorari lies to quash such a trial court order and to require the abatement of the bad faith claim, see I…
-
Mich. Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bourke, 581 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ment of the bad faith claim and compelled only the discovery of materials in the claim file not violative of the Kujawa decision. In ordering the bad faith claim to proceed, the trial court relied upon Royal Insurance Co. v. Zayas Men’s Shop, Inc., 551 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), interpreting Zayas to permit a breach of contract claim and a bad faith claim to be maintained simultaneously. The trial court interpreted Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla.1991), to ho…
-
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Stacie L. Grant and Brian Grant, 555 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…g in Mayor, finding that the reasoning for the decision is no longer viable in light of the holding of the supreme court in Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989). See Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Zayas Men’s Shop, Inc., 551 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). As the reasoning in Mayor no longer states the law, we adopt the position set forth in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 533 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In State Farm, petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to review a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Penelope R. Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1989)
- Fid. & Cas. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Taylor, 525 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lovell, 530 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Manhattan Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Penelope R. Kujawa, 522 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Roslyn Mayor, 538 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Frame v. State, 538 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)