ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
PATRICIA BOLEN, 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.
Illinois National Insurance Company sought certiorari to review a discovery order requiring it to produce its claims file and allow its claims adjuster's deposition in a dispute with its insured over uninsured motorist benefits and bad faith. The court granted the petition in part, prohibiting disclosure of the claims file as work-product but permitting a limited deposition of the claims adjuster.
The court held that an insurer's claims file constitutes protected work-product and is not subject to discovery until the insurer's obligation to provide coverage is determined, but permitted a limited deposition of the claims adjuster regarding only the affirmative defense of failure to comply with conditions precedent and the factual basis for denial of coverage.
[1] An insurer's claims file constitutes work-product and is not subject to discovery until the insurer's obligation to provide coverage and benefits is determined.
[2] Certiorari is an appropriate remedy for a discovery order that departs from the essential requirements of law, causes material injury, and leaves no adequate remedy on ap…
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“It is well-established that an insurer's claims file constitutes work-product and is not subject to discovery until the insurer's obligation to provide coverage and benefits is determined.”
Establishes the core legal principle protecting insurer claims files from discovery during coverage disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia Bolen was injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed a two-count complaint against her insurer, INIC, seeking uninsured/underinsured motor…
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
EVANDER, J.
Illinois National Insurance Company (INIC) seeks a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order that (1) required INIC to produce its claims file to its insured, Patricia Bolen, and (2) required INIC’s claims adjuster to appear for deposition. We grant the petition, in part, and deny, in part.
Bolen was involved in a motor vehicle accident when the vehicle she was driving was struck by another vehicle. She sustained various injuries as a result of the accident. At the time of the incident, Bo-len was insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by INIC.
Bolen brought a two-count complaint against INIC. In Count I, Bolen sought to recover uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) benefits. In Count II, Bolen asserted a “bad faith” claim for INIC’s alleged breach of its fiduciary duty in the handling of her UM claim. The trial court abated the bad faith count until there was a final determination on Count I.
Bolen subsequently sought to take the deposition of INIC’s claims adjuster, Christine Barnett. The notice of taking deposition duces tecum directed Barnett to produce her “entire file regarding Patricia Bolen.” INIC filed a motion requesting that the trial court issue a protective order preventing the deposition and the attendant production of documents. In its motion, INIC contended that both the claims file and Barnett’s testimony were protected by the work-product and attorney-client privileges and that they were irrelevant to the cause of action for the recovery of UM benefits.
The trial court determined that the only permissible areas of inquiry for Barnett were (1) INIC’s affirmative defense alleg ing that Plaintiff had “failed to comply with all conditions precedent” prior to instituting the claim for UM benefits, and (2) INIC’s denial of paragraph 8 of Bolen’s complaint. (In paragraph 8, Bolen had alleged that the driver and owner of the motor vehicle that struck Bolen’s vehicle were uninsured thereby triggering her entitlement to UM benefits.) The trial court declined to quash the subpoena duces te-cum which required INIC to produce its claims file.
Certiorari is the appropriate remedy when a discovery order departs from the central requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cambron, 936 So. 2d 1210,1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). It is well-established that an insurer’s claims file constitutes work-product and is not subject to discovery until the insurer’s obligation to provide coverage and benefits is determined. See, e.g., American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 673 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Accordingly, the trial court’s order constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law to the extent it required INIC to produce its claims file. Wheeler; Martin; Swanson.
We find no error in the trial court’s decision to permit a limited deposition of INIC’s claims adjuster. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Marascuillo, 161 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…Constr., Inc. v. Mendiguren, 958 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). For this reason, an order compelling disclosure of an insurer’s claim file is generally reviewable by petition for writ of certiorari. See, e.g., Illinois Nat. Ins. Co. v. Bolen, 997 So. 2d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (cer- [*497] tiorari proceeding noting the “well-established” rule in Florida “that an insurer’s claims file constitutes work-product”); cf. Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121, 1123 (Fla.2005) (recognizing Flor…
-
Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 314 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…as liability for coverage remains in dispute, the report, housed within the claim file, is irrelevant, hence, not yet “otherwise discoverable,” within the meaning of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4). See Ill. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Bolen, 997 So. 2d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“[A]n insurer’s claims file . . . is not subject to discovery until the insurer’s obligation to provide coverage and benefits is determined.”) (citations omitted); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americ…
-
Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Herzoff (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ill frequently fit within the definition of work product. See generally Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Rajan, 93 So. 3d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("An insurer's claim file generally constitutes work product . . . ."); Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Bolen, 997 So. 2d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) ("It is well-established that an insurer's claim file constitutes work-product . . . ."); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) ("[T]h…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- White v. State, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 673 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- J.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 936 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cambron, 936 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)