GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
AMERICAN MUTUAL 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 court held that the work product privilege applies to underwriting and claim files in bad faith insurance litigation, and the trial court erred in ordering their production without regard to the privilege.
General Accident Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling production of its underwriting and claim files without r…
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 Common Law Bad Faith cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Petitioner, General Accident Insurance Company, seeks certiorari review of a lower court order requiring General Accident to produce its underwriting and claim files without regard to whether or not those files contain information falling under the work product privilege. The plaintiff in the lower court, American Mutual Insurance Company, filed a two count complaint against General Accident, the primary carrier, alleging common law and statutory bad faith.
The trial court found that the cases of Kujawa v. Manhattan National Life Insurance Company, 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989) and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jones, 544 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) are not applicable to the instant facts, apparently on the basis that the former decision involved life insurance rather than accident insurance, and that the latter opinion was factually unclear. We find that the work product privilege does apply to the instant ease, and that Kujawa and State Farm are controlling. See also, Royal Insurance Company of America v. Zayas Men’s Shop, Inc., 551 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Melendez, 550 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari review and quash the order of the trial court, which requires production of underwriting and claim files irrespective of any work product privilege. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b). ORDER QUASHED; CAUSE REMANDED.
DANIEL, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Am. S. Home Ins. Co., 680 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ction to opposing parties pursuant to section 90.502, Florida Statutes, and Rule 1.280(b)(3), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. American States Ins. Co. v. Kransco, 641 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); General Acc. Ins. Co. v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 562 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Fla. Min. & Materials Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 556 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Croft, 432 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 19…
-
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kransco, 641 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…its claim files are entitled to protection on grounds of work product and attorney-client privilege. See also State [*177] Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaForet, 591 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); General Accident Ins. Co. v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 562 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). ASI points out that under Kujaiva the attorney-client privilege provides immunity from disclosure to documents falling under it and that materials entitled to protection as work product may be discovered only upon an adequate sh…
Authorities Cited
- Penelope R. Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1989)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Melendez, 550 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Royal Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Zayas Men's Shop, Inc., 551 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 544 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)