STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
BRUCE TODD WHEELAND AND DAN SAWYER INSURANCE AGENCY, INCORPORATED, 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 to quash a discovery order requiring production of its claim and litigation files in a third-party bad faith action. The court held that discovery of an insurer's files is impermissible in a bad faith action until the plaintiff first establishes that the insurer is obligated to provide coverage under the policy.
Discovery of an insurer's claim and litigation files is not permissible in a third-party bad faith action until the plaintiff has established that the insurer is obligated to provide coverage under the policy. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the discovery request.
[1] Discovery of an insurer's claim and litigation files in a third-party bad faith action is impermissible until the plaintiff establishes coverage under the policy.
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by ordering discovery of an insurer's files prior to the establishment of coverage in a third-party bad faith…
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“State Farm contends that discovery of an insurer's claim and litigation files is not permissible in a third-party bad faith action until the plaintiff in that action has established that the insurer is obligated to provide coverage under the policy. We agree with State Farm's position, which is in accordance with the other District Courts of Appeal that have considered the issue.”
Establishes the court's holding that coverage must be established before discovery of insurer files is permitted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBruce Todd Wheeland recovered a tort judgment against State Farm's insured and then filed a third-party bad faith action against State Farm for failin…
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 Third-Party Bad Faith Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
The clerk’s order previously issued in this case on September 26, 1994, is withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted in its place.
Bruce Todd Wheeland, a respondent herein, recovered a tort judgment against an insured of the petitioner, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. Wheeland then filed this third-party bad faith action against State Farm, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith on the part of State Farm in failing to defend its insured against Wheeland’s claim, and in failing to settle for the policy limits. State Farm answered Wheeland’s complaint, and raised the affirmative defense of lack of coverage, asserting that its policy did not cover its insured for Wheeland’s particular claim. Thereafter, Wheeland filed a request for production, seeking discovery of all of State Farm’s correspondence, claim, and litigation files pertaining to Wheeland’s claim against State Farm’s insured.
The trial court granted Wheeland’s request for these items. State Farm now seeks to quash the trial court’s order by way of a petition for a common law writ of certiorari.
State Farm contends that discovery of an insurer’s claim and litigation files is not permissible in a third-party bad faith action until the plaintiff in that action has established that the insurer is obligated to provide coverage under the policy.
We agree with State Farm’s position, which is in accordance with the other District Courts of Appeal that have considered the issue. See Superior Ins. Co. v. Holden, 642 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); General Accident Fire and Life Ins. Corp. v. Boudreau, 19 Fla.L.Weekly D1843, 1994 WL 474965 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 2, 1994); Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lovell, 530 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (discovery of an insurer’s files was impermissible prior to the establishment of coverage in a first-party bad faith action); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (same).
Consequently, we find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the request for production. We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, and quash the order under review. Our granting of the petition is without prejudice to Wheeland to again request production of State Farm’s files if, and when, he resolves the issue of coverage in his favor. See Dunn v. National Sec. Fire and Casualty Co., 631 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Stone v. Travelers Ins. Co., 326 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 325 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1976).
Certiorari granted; order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara de Comercio Latino-Americana DE LOS Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…A 1998). When the issue of insurance coverage is unresolved and at issue in pending court proceedings, a trial court must not order an insurer to produce its claims files and other work product documents. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wheeland, 648 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). See also State Farm, Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(quash-ing order compelling discovery of insurer’s claims files, internal claims documents, and work product when coverage was at issue). This same…
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 673 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…mine coverage when that action is combined with a bad faith action until the insurer’s obligation to provide coverage has been established. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wheeland, 648 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Superior Ins. Co. v. Holden, 642 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lovell, 530 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (discovery of an insurer…
-
Hotelerama Assocs., Ltd. v. The Travelers Indem. Lower Co. OF Ill., 687 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ee Riano v. Heritage Corp., 665 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), nor a departure from the essential requirements of the law, see State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wheeland, 648 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Zaban v. McCombs, 568 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), has been demonstrated, the petition is denied. Certiorari denied.…
Authorities Cited
- Dunn v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 631 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Brainard Stone and Beulah Stone v. Travelers Ins. Co., 326 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 325 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Lach v. Lach, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Superior Ins. Co. v. Holden, 642 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lovell, 530 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)