UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, A RECIPROCAL INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE (USAA), PETITIONER,
v.
MARK S. ROTH AND MARILYN ROTH, 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.
USAA sought a writ of certiorari to challenge a trial court order compelling production of documents claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege in insurance coverage litigation. The appellate court found the documents were privileged communications and quashed the trial court's order.
The court held that the documents are protected by attorney-client privilege under Florida Statute § 90.502 and that the trial court deviated from the essential requirements of the law by ordering their production.
[1] A writ of common law certiorari is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge a trial court order compelling the production of documents claimed to be protected by attorn…
[2] Communications concerning legal matters between an attorney and client are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
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“Any communication to which the privilege attaches is absolutely immune from disclosure.”
Establishes the absolute nature of attorney-client privilege protection once properly claimed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUSAA is the plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action with the Roths concerning coverage under a personal umbrella policy, specifically the effect of…
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 Petition For Writ Of Common Law Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the midst of insurance coverage litigation, United Services Automobile Association [USAA] filed a petition for writ of common law certiorari. The petition challenges a trial court order, which overruled USAA’s objection to production of documents based on attorney-client privilege and compelled production.1 We find the order deviated from the essential requirements of the law, grant the petition, and quash the order. USAA is the plaintiff/counter-defendant in a declaratory judgment action concerning the amount of coverage available under a personal umbrella policy. Although other coverage issues have been litigated concerning this policy, the current issue involves the effect of the “limit of liability” clause. See United Servs. Auto Ass’n v. Roth, 744 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (discussing stacking of coverages).
The Roths served interrogatories on USAA asking for the name of the court, case number, and lawyers involved in unrelated litigation known as “Stoukey” or “Stouky” v. USAA. That case is mentioned on USAA’s Florida Coverage Comparison document as the reason for the change in the “limit of liability” policy language. The Roths also sought production of documents, which included communications between outside Florida legal counsel for USAA and the carrier. These communications involved legal opinions on coverage.
USAA objected to the discovery and the Roths moved to compel better answers to interrogatories and better responses to the request to produce. After hearing argument, the trial court directed USAA to provide the documents for an in camera inspection. Following that inspection, the trial court ordered production of the documents. It is from this order that USAA has petitioned this court.
A petition for writ of certiorari is the proper means for review of court orders compelling production of discovery claimed to be privileged. Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car, 736 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Our review of the claim of attorney-client privilege is de novo.
We have reviewed the documents in question and find that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege under section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2002). That privilege covers communications on legal matters between counsel and client. Any communication to which the privilege attaches is absolutely immune from disclosure. Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989). The trial court deviated from the essential requirements of the law when it ordered USAA to produce these documents. Id.
We therefore grant the petition, issue the writ, and quash the order to the extent it required production of the documents.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur. . The order also compels better answers to interrogatories, but this ruling has not been challenged in the petition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Traffanstead v. State, 290 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…(Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (finding that whether “[t]he trial court excluded this testimony and evidence based on its interpretation of the accident report privilege . . . is a question of law subject to de novo review”); United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Roth, 859 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (noting that a review of an attorney-client privilege claim is de novo). Florida law shields the disclosure of an individual’s confidential communications and records regarding mental health treatment and diagnosis. § 90.5…
-
Fla. Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters AT Lloyd's London Subscribing TO Policy NO. 893/HC/97/9096, 900 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ate employees is protected if the communication concerns legal advice in view of a contentious relationship and in anticipation of litigation). Our review of the claim of attorney-client privilege is de novo. See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Roth, 859 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We have reviewed the documents in question and find that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Our independent review of the documents leads us to the conclusion that Whittle was rendering legal advice not…
-
United Servs. Auto. Associaton v. Buckstein, 891 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…t clear from the record whether either privilege applies in this case. Notwithstanding the work product objections, if any of the documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege, they are not discoverable. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Roth, 859 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). There is also some confusion between the parties regarding which documents Buck-stein is seeking from the privilege log. Accordingly, the circuit court’s order is quashed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. On r…
Authorities Cited
- Penelope R. Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1989)
- Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car, 736 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Roth, 744 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)