GERVACIO G. ARANCA, APPELLANT,
v.
MUNROE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER & UNITED SELF INSURED SERVICES, APPELLEES
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.
This case concerns whether the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine protect an insurer's claims file from discovery in a first-party bad faith action.
The dissenting opinion argues that the attorney-client privilege should not prevent discovery of an insurer's claims file in a first-party bad faith action, especially when it might contain evidence of bad faith.
An insured brought a bad faith claim against their insurer after a jury verdict. The insured sought to discover the insurer's claims file, but the ins…
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 Temporary Partial Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
[*614] PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order which resolved certain issues, but which indicated that temporary partial disability benefits could not then be awarded as it was not shown that the claimant had completed or submitted DWC-19 forms (Employee Earnings Reports). The order cited Jack Feagin Electric, Inc. v. Hallmark, 894 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), for the proposition that the benefits would not be due unless the forms are completed and returned. But the order specified that the temporary partial claim was not being denied with prejudice, and that if the benefits are not provided after the forms are submitted the claimant may pursue another claim and obtain another adjudication.
The appealed order did not resolve all outstanding issues in connection with the temporary partial disability claim, and instead left the benefits unresolved and subject to further dispute and another hearing. The order is thus interlocutory and not presently appealable. Crown Hotel v. Friedman, 420 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also General Electric Co. v. Hawkins, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
This appeal is therefore dismissed.
ALLEN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Crown Hotel & Kent Ins. Co. v. Friedman, 420 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Gen. Elec. Co. & Elec. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Hawkins, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Cast Crete Corp. & R. P. Hewitt & Assocs. v. Turner, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Jack Feagin Elec., Inc. v. Hallmark, 894 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)