NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
EUGENE HARMON AND EDITH HARMON, HIS WIFE, 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.
Nationwide's certiorari petition challenging a trial court order to produce documents is denied because Nationwide failed to carry its burden of establishing that specific documents were privileged as work product or attorney-client communications.
An insurance company seeking to withhold documents on privilege grounds must specifically identify each document and demonstrate that it qualifies for work product or attorney-client privilege.
[1] To establish a privilege protecting documents from discovery, a party must specifically identify each document and demonstrate that it qualifies for the claimed privilege…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company challenged a trial court order compelling production of materials it claimed were privileged. The company ass…
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 Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner challenged by way of certiorari an order of the trial court compelling the production of material petitioner claimed was privileged as work product or attorney/client privilege. We deny the petition.
The record, as opposed to the unsupported statements in the petition, does not show that petitioner carried its burden of establishing that any particular document was privileged so as to preclude its production. See Surette v. Galiardo, 323 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). While petitioner claims that much of what was requested is work product, there is no showing whether the materials in question were prepared in anticipation of litigation with respondents or were investigations conducted during the normal business of evaluating the claim made by respondents, petitioner’s insured. See e.g. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that any documents are protected by attorney/client privilege. If petitioner thought some documents might be protected by either privilege, it should have listed the specific doc uments to which it claimed the privilege attaches. Otherwise, neither the trial court nor this court has anything specific to address.
DELL, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…tion. In seeking cer-tiorari relief, Nationwide contends that it properly raised its privilege claim, in spite of not filing a privilege log. We disagree. In an earlier discovery case involving Nationwide, Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the Fourth District held that Nationwide failed to meet its burden of establishing that any particular document was protected by the work product or attorney-client privilege, explaining that if Nationwide felt that some of its…
-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Weeks, 696 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…in response to the motion to compel, Wal-Mart has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the materials which are the subject of the request to produce were prepared in anticipation of litigation. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Wal-Mart cannot make a blanket statement that these items were prepared in anticipation of litigation and are protected from disclosure without presenting evidence to support its claim. See Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., v…
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 780 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…2d DCA 1989)). We reject that position as this court distinguishes between material prepared during the normal course of evaluating a claim and materials actually prepared “in anticipation of litigation.” See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(citing Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assocs., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)). In Cotton, we considered federal decisions as persuasive authority because Florida’s rule of civil procedure pertaining to wor…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assocs., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Surette v. Galiardo, 323 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)