STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH MARTIN AND JOHN TILL, 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 a trial court order compelling discovery of its claim file documents in a combined declaratory judgment/bad faith action. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that discovery of an insurer's privileged claim and litigation files is not permissible in coverage actions combined with bad faith claims until the insurer's obligation to provide coverage has been judicially established.
Discovery of an insurer's claim and litigation files is not permissible in an action to determine coverage when that action is combined with a bad faith action until the insurer's obligation to provide coverage has been established. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in compelling discovery of privileged materials.
[1] Discovery of an insurer's claim and litigation file is not permissible in an action to determine coverage when that action is combined with a bad faith action until the i…
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by compelling discovery of privileged materials in an insurance coverage and bad faith action prior to the es…
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“Discovery of an insurer's claim and litigation file is not permissible in an action to determine coverage when that action is combined with a bad faith action until the insurer's obligation to provide coverage has been established.”
This establishes the core holding that discovery must be stayed pending judicial determination of coverage in combined declaratory judgment and bad faith actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Martin recovered a tort judgment against Philip Banks, an insured of State Farm. State Farm filed a declaratory judgment action to determine w…
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 Intentional Act cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company seeks certiorari review of an order of the trial court compelling State Farm to produce for discovery documents in a claim file in a case involving a declaratory judgment action to determine insurance coverage and a bad faith counterclaim. The issue in this case is whether a party in a combined insurance coverage/bad faith action is entitled to discovery of claim file documents consisting of protected work-product and privileged attorney-client material.
Kenneth Martin, the respondent, recovered a tort judgment against Phillip Banks, an insured of State Farm. State Farm filed an independent declaratory judgment action to determine whether the actions of Banks were covered under the terms of the policy.1 Martin asserted a third party bad faith counterclaim. Martin also asserted a first party bad faith counterclaim as assignee of Banks’s rights. Martin sought discovery of State Farm’s claim file relating to the underlying litigation. After an in camera inspection the trial court entered an order compelling discovery of specified documents from State Farm’s claim file. State Farm seeks certiorari review of this discovery order. We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the discovery order entered below.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in compelling discovery of privileged materials. State Farm is entitled to a ruling concerning the dispute over coverage under the policy. See Tindall v. Allstate Ins. Co., 472 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1986).
There has been no judicial determination that State Farm has an obligation to provide coverage. Discovery of an insurer’s claim and litigation file is not permissible in an action to determine 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’s files impermissible prior to establishment of coverage in a first party bad faith action); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (same).
WRIT ISSUED; ORDER QUASHED.
W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . We note that the assertion of coverage for Banks's actions is dubious at best Banks shot the respondent, Martin, when Martin tried to stab Banks after Martin found Banks in bed with Martin’s estranged wife. As a matter of law the intentional act of discharging a firearm while directing it at another human being is an "intentional” act even though the firearm was discharged in self defense. Clemmons v. American States Ins. Co., 412 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1196 (Fla.1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…issue of coverage has not been determined, it is a departure from the essential requirements of the law to order disclosure of the insurer’s claims file and the insurer’s claims handling manuals and materials); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 673 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla.1991). Therefore, because Republic’s obligation to provide coverage has yet to be determined, the trial court departed from the essential requirements o…
-
OLD Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Homeamerican Credit, Inc., 844 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…issue of coverage has not been determined, it is a departure from the essential requirements of the law to order disclosure of the insurer’s claims file and the insurer’s claims handling manuals and materials); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 673 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Blanchard v. State [*820] Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla.1991). Therefore, because Republic’s obligation to provide coverage has yet to be determined, the trial court departed from the essential require…
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Edelmida Rodriguez, 960 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…issue of coverage has not been determined, it is a departure from the essential requirements of the law to order disclosure of the insurer’s claims file and the insurer’s claims handling manuals and materials); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 673 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1991). Therefore, because Republic’s obligation to provide coverage has yet to be determined, the trial court departed from the essential requirements…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tindall v. Allstate Ins. Co., 472 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Clemmons v. Am. States Ins. Co., 412 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- 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. Swanson, 506 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- 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)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wheeland, 648 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)