BROADCAST TEAM, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Duty To Defend cases and more on FLexlaw
[*309] PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, The Broadcast Team, Inc. [“TBT”] seeks a writ of certiorari directed to an order of the trial court ordering it to produce its entire litigation file in a previous case to Respondent, Hartford Insurance Co. [“Hartford”], its insurer. The litigation below concerns Hartford’s alleged breach of the duty to defend TBT in the prior litigation. Hartford offered the trial court several reasons why its insured’s communications with its counsel and its work product should be disclosed to Hartford in such wholesale fashion, one of which was the failure of TBT to serve a privilege log. Unfortunately, the trial court did not explain the reason for its decision. Because the trial judge did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Bankers Security Insurance Co. v. Symons, 889 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), clarifying the application of the abrogation of privilege as a sanction for failure to serve a privilege log and because the order is difficult to explain on any other basis, we elect to quash the order and remand to the trial court for reconsideration in light of this new decision. If there is some other basis for the decision, the trial court should identify it to facilitate subsequent review.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buck v. Josee Chin, 19 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…om the essential requirements of law for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal, and quash the order under review. Setting aside the interesting question whether the order infringes upon Dr. Wender’s due process rights, see Daniel v. Garrison, 894 So. 2d 308, 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (finding “without prior notice and without the benefit of subpoena,” the lower court violated petitioner’s due process rights) (quoting Times Publ’g Co. v. Burke, 375 So. 2d 297, 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)), it is clear that the…
-
Symons v. Symons, 7 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…improperly files a petition for writ of prohibition, an appellate court may treat the petition as a petition for writ of certiorari as long as the petition was filed within thirty days of rendition of the order under review. See Daniel v. Garrison, 894 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); N. Shore Med. Ctr. v. Capua, 634 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Maliska v. Broome, 609 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Because the order under review was entered on August 21, 2008, and the petition was filed on August 28, 2008,…
Authorities Cited
- Bankers Sec. Ins. Co. v. Helene Symons and Chris Symons, 889 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)