UNITED AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
GABLES MRA, ETC., 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.
United Auto Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring production of documents and interrogatory responses in a PIP breach of contract class action. The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the order, holding that discovery must be limited to class certification issues until standing is established, not premature merits discovery.
The court held that discovery must be limited to matters relevant to class certification and standing, not the merits of the underlying claim, until those prerequisites are established. The discovery order was impermissible because it sought information going to the merits before standing and class certification were resolved.
[1] Discovery that goes to the merits of a cause of action is impermissible before the prerequisites of standing and class certification have been established.
[2] Precertification discovery should generally be limited to matters relevant to class certification, not the merits of the case.
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 discovery order on review impermissibly allows discovery that goes to the merits of the cause of action before the necessary prerequisites of standing and class certification have been established.”
Establishes the core holding that merits discovery is improper before standing and class certification are resolved
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGables MRA filed a complaint against United Auto alleging breach of Florida's personal injury protection statute and requesting class certification. U…
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 Class Certification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
United Auto Insurance Company petitions for a writ of certiorari to review and quash a non-final order overruling its objections to the respondent’s, Gables MRA, request for production of documents and interrogatories, and to stay all discovery pending determination of the respondent’s standing. We grant the petition and quash the order on review.
Gables MRA filed a complaint against United Auto claiming breach of Florida’s personal injury protection [PIP] statute and requesting class certification. An issue has arisen as to whether or not Gables MRA has standing to bring the action. This issue has yet to be resolved. Gables MRA propounded certain discovery requesting production of documents including guidelines and procedure and practice manuals provided to United Auto PIP claims adjusters. United Auto’s objections to this discovery were overruled by the trial court and United Auto filed the present petition for certiorari.
We grant the petition for writ of certiorari. The discovery order on review impermissibly allows discovery that goes to the merits of the cause of action before the necessary prerequisites of standing and class certification have been established. As a general rule, precertification discovery should be limited to matters relevant to class certification, not the merits of the case. Policastro v. Stelk, 780 So. 2d 989, 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also Baptist Hosp. of Miami v. Demario, 683 So. 2d 641, 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (granting a petition for certiorari and remanding with directions that the trial court stay merits discovery “pending its determination of [respondent’s] standing to serve as the class representative”); Taran v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 685 So. 2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (affirming denial of full merits discovery pending determination of plaintiffs’ standing).
At this point in the litigation, discovery should be limited to that necessary to first establish the respondent’s standing and certification of the proposed class. The discovery objected to goes to the merits of the claim.
The trial court’s order requiring this discovery constitutes a substantial departure from the essential requirements of the law and could cause material injury that could not be remedied at the end of the litigation.
Petition for certiorari granted; order below quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Telesco Constr. Mgmt., Inc. v. Nat'l Concrete Pres., Inc., 337 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…essential requirements of law, warranting certiorari relief, when the trial court compels merits discovery without first determining that a putative class ---PAGE 4--- representative has adequate standing”); United Auto Ins. Co. v. Gables MRA, 997 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“As a general rule, precertification discovery should be limited to matters relevant to class certification, not the merits of the case.”). As the order under review compels production of merits discovery prior to a det…
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. E. P'rs, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…trial court compels merits discovery without first determining that a putative class representative has adequate standing. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. DeMario, 683 So. 2d 641, 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also United Auto Ins. Co. v. Gables MRA, 997 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 3 The County has filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of Respondent’s standing. We express no opinion on the merits of either the County’s summary judgment motion or the allegations in Respondent’s complaint. 4 Our s…
Authorities Cited
- Taran v. Blue Cross Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc., 685 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Policastro v. Stelk, 780 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Eugenia Austin v. State, 683 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Nehrke v. State, 683 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)