STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
VERONICA ANN LAFORET AND HENRY A. LAFORET, HER HUSBAND, 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.
State Farm sought certiorari review of an order compelling production of its claims file in a bad faith insurance case. The court held that the respondent's discovery request failed to meet the statutory requirements for obtaining work product materials because it lacked specific allegations of need and inability to obtain equivalent information by other means.
The discovery request failed to meet Rule 1.280(b)(2) requirements because it lacked specific explanations and reasons demonstrating need and inability to obtain the information by other means. The required showing must be included within the discovery request itself, not merely presented at a judicial hearing.
[1] A party seeking production of work product materials under Rule 1.280(b)(2) must include within the request a specific showing of need and inability to obtain the substan…
[2] A showing of need for work product materials must consist of specific explanations and reasons, not merely a bare assertion.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a party requesting production of Rule 1.280(b)(2) materials must include within the request a showing of need and of inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. A "showing" is more than a bare assertion; it consists of specific explanations and reasons.”
Establishes the standard for adequate work product discovery requests under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaForet noticed the deposition of a State Farm officer and simultaneously required production of the carrier's main claims file (excluding attorney-cl…
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 Bad Faith Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of an amended order of the circuit court compelling petitioner to produce its claim file in a suit over a bad faith claim in connection with an uninsured motorist automobile accident injury case.
LaForet noticed the deposition of a State Farm officer and simultaneously required production at the deposition of the carrier’s main claims file with the exception of any correspondence claimed to be within the attorney-client privilege.
The company official was deposed. He had the claim file with him, but it was not turned over to respondents. Subsequently, respondents filed a motion to compel. A hearing was held and the trial court granted the production upon a finding that La-Foret had demonstrated good cause for seeing the work product documentation, there being no other reasonable means of obtaining information supporting the bad faith claim.
There is no transcript of the hearing presented. However, the request for production fails to meet the requirements of Rule 1.280(b)(2) to justify production of work product material. The discovery rule in question has been interpreted in several cases, including Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), to require specific allegations of need and inability to fulfill that need without undue hardship. As the court said in Speer:
The only words in the plaintiffs’ Request to Produce which might be considered a showing of need were these:
Further, plaintiff(s) would state that the above items are relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation and the plaintiff(s) has need of the materials in the preparation of their case, and the plaintiff(s) are unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means.
The record does not reveal what demonstration of need the plaintiffs may have presented during the hearing before the trial court, but in any event we hold that a party requesting production of Rule 1.280(b)(2) materials must include within the request a showing of need and of inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. A “showing” is more than a bare assertion; it consists of specific explanations and reasons.
As for the time when the showing must be made, we believe that a reading of Rule 1.280(b)(2) itself leaves no doubt that a showing in the request for production itself is contemplated. The rule states that a party may obtain discovery “only upon a showing_” It was obviously intended that the showing should be made as a routine prerequisite to production of Rule 1.280(b)(2) materials, and not that it should be brought out for the first time at a judicial hearing.
361 So. 2d at 723.
LaForet’s pleadings suffer from the same deficiencies as existed in Speer. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order compelling production of the claims file.
GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 780 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…that they were prepared in anticipation of litigation and are protected from discovery. The Ruizes have not met their burden to overcome the protection of those documents by the work product privilege. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaForet, 591 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We therefore partially grant the petition for writ of certiorari and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. WARNER, C.J., STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
The Est. OF May Schwartz v. H.B.A. Mgmt., Inc., 673 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…oward Hospital District v. Button, 592 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (work product materials are discoverable only upon a showing of need and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. LaForet, 591 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (plaintiff with insurance bad-faith claim did not make sufficient showing to justify production of work product documentation in claim file by asserting that there was no other reasonable means of obtaining information supporting…
-
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kransco, 641 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…anhattan Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989), ASI argues that the contents of 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 ma…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)