LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS AT LONDON, A CORPORATION AUTHORIZED AND DOING BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
EL-AD VILLAGIO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
Lloyd's Underwriters challenged a trial court order denying its motion for protective order and requiring disclosure of insurance adjuster reports and claim file materials in a breach of contract action. The appellate court found the trial court failed to properly conduct an in camera inspection before determining work product privilege did not apply, and remanded for proper proceedings.
The trial court's order denying the protective order must be quashed and remanded because the court failed to conduct an in camera inspection of the disputed documents before determining that work product privilege did not apply. On remand, the trial court must determine whether the items constitute work product and, if so, whether the opposing party is entitled to discovery notwithstanding that designation.
[1] A trial court must conduct an in camera inspection of documents before determining whether they are protected by the work product privilege.
[2] An order requiring disclosure of an insurer's entire claims file prior to a coverage determination may constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law.
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“the trial court failed to conduct an in camera inspection of the documents before making the latter determination”
Establishes the fundamental procedural error requiring reversal—the trial court did not properly examine the documents before ruling on work product privilege
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLloyd's Underwriters, an insurer, was defending a breach of contract action brought by its insured, El-Ad Villagio Condominium Association. The trial …
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 Coverage Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Lloyd’s Underwriters at London (LLOYD’S), defending a breach of con tract action by its insured, respondent El-Ad Villagio Condominium Association, Inc., challenges a trial court order denying its motion for protective order. LLOYD’S argues that the trial court order requires it to disclose documents protected by the work product privilege, including reports written by and communicated among insurance adjusters, prior to a determination of coverage and the extent of damages.
Specifically, the trial court’s order required production of the entire file of a representative of CJW Associates, retained by LLOYD’S to assist in investigation and evaluation of the insurance claim against it, relating to the claimant El-Ad Villagio Condominium Association, Inc., “cover to cover, including but not limited to all job assignment forms, receipts, correspondence, memorandum and every other document, note or paper contained therein.”
In denying LLOYD’S motion for protective order, the trial court found a “compelling interest” in the production of the documents and that they were not work product. However, the record shows that the trial court failed to conduct an in camera inspection of the documents before making the latter determination. No copy of the privilege log, if prepared and filed below, has been made part of this court’s record to review. We are unable to determine on this record whether the conclusion that the work product privilege did not apply to the documents in dispute constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, as petitioner contends. For example, in State Farm, Florida Insurance Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), the second district quashed a trial court order similarly directing an insurer in a first party breach of contract action to produce its claims files in great detail. The second district found that the materials requested were work product or irrelevant.
Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings in accordance with Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The trial court shall determine whether the items ordered to be produced constitute work product, and if so, whether respondent is entitled to discovery of them notwithstanding that designation pursuant to rule 1.280, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dismas Charities, Inc. v. Dabbs, 795 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Carriage Homes at Terra Mar Condo. Ass’n v. Kennedy Group, Ltd., 637 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Certiorari granted; trial court order quashed and case remanded.
STONE, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City OF Port ST. Lucie v. Vallerie Follano, 177 So. 3d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…tion of the material at issue in order to determine whether the privilege applies. The court can then consider whether the material is discoverable under Rule 1.280. Id. at 782; see also Lloyd’s Underwriters at London v. El-Ad Villagio Condo. Ass’n, 976 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Town Ctr. @ Boca Raton Trust v. Hirokawa, 789 So. 2d 1230, 1231-32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).1 The trial court in this case departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to conduct an in camera review before determin…
-
Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. John, 150 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4); see also Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Anderson, 92 So. 3d 922, 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Lloyd’s Underwriters at London v. El-Ad Villagio Cond. Ass’n, 976 So. 2d 28, 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). STEVENSON, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assocs., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Dismas Charities, Inc. v. Dabbs, 795 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Lake Marion Assocs., Ltd. v. Bull RUN Country Club, Inc., 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Carriage Homes AT Terra MAR Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. The Kennedy Grp., Ltd., 637 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- EEN v. Rice, 637 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)