SEMINOLE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGIA MASTROMINAS, NIKOLAOS MASTROMINAS, FOTINI H. MASTROMINAS, AND ALL DISCOUNT AUTO INSURANCE, INC., RESPONDENTS
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.
Seminole Casualty Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a trial court discovery order requiring it to produce materials from its claims file. The Florida appellate court held that when coverage is disputed and no bad faith claim is asserted, an insurer's claim file materials are generally not discoverable, and the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering disclosure.
A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law when it compels disclosure of an insurer's claims file materials in a coverage dispute that has not been resolved and where no bad faith claim has been filed. The trial court's order was improper and subject to certiorari review.
[1] Certiorari review is appropriate when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of the law, causing material injury to the petitioner throughout the remai…
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law in compelling disclosure of the contents of an insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is in disp…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law in compelling disclosure of the contents of an insurer's claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved.”
Establishes the central legal rule that claim files are protected from discovery in unresolved coverage disputes absent a bad faith claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorgia, Nikolaos, and Fotini Mastrominas sued Seminole Casualty Insurance Company after Seminole denied coverage for an accident occurring July 8, 20…
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 Bad Faith Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Seminole Casualty Insurance Company seeks certiorari review of a discovery order requiring it to produce certain items in its claims file. Because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in ordering Seminole to produce these items, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the court’s order.
Georgia Mastrominas, Nikolaos Mastro-minas, and Fotini H. Mastrominas sued Seminole after Seminole denied coverage for an accident that occurred on July 8, 2001. Seminole claimed that the policy had been cancelled and was not in effect on the date of the accident because Nikol-aos Mastrominas had made a material misrepresentation in the insurance application. During discovery, the Mastromi-nases requested a copy of the entire claims file. Seminole objected on the ground that the items requested were privileged. The trial court conducted an in camera review of the items and found that not all of the claim file materials were protected by attorney-client or work-product privileges.1 The court entered an order requiring Seminole to produce those materials. This certiorari proceeding followed.
*1258Certiorari review is appropriate when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of the law, causing material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings, and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993, 999 (Fla.1999); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995). A trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law in compelling disclosure of the contents of an insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved. See Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Vreeland, 973 So.2d 668, 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 927 So.2d 122, 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Here, the Mastrominases alleged breach of contract and sought a declaratory judgment that coverage was in effect on the date of the accident. The lawsuit did not include a bad faith claim. See Hoy, 927 So.2d at 124 (finding that in a bad faith suit, a plaintiff may obtain discovery of the claim file). Because the issue of coverage is in dispute and has yet to be determined, the court departed from the essential requirements of the law by ordering Seminole to disclose materials in its claim file.2 See Vreeland, 973 So.2d at 671; Rodriguez, 960 So.2d at 796. Further, requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal. Hoy, 927 So.2d at 126; see Vreeland, 973 So.2d at 671.
Accordingly, we grant Seminole’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the court’s order compelling Seminole to produce certain items in its claim file.
Petition granted; order quashed.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Meir Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…mined.”); Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). State Farm argues that production of claim file material at this stage in the litigation will cause irreparable harm, citing Seminole Casualty Insurance Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding an order “requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal”). State Farm also cites our rec…
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. Cookie Roberta Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ntract. “A trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law in compelling disclosure of the contents of an insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved.” Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (emphasis added). “Further, requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal.” Id. Accordingly, we gran…
-
Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Govin T. Rajan, 93 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ve reviewed the documents that the circuit court identified and ordered to be produced to Mr. Rajan. These documents consist of claims handling materials and are clearly Auto-Owners’ protected work product. See Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“[Requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal.”); Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Croft, 432 So. 2d 196, 19…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999)
- Northup v. Herbert W. Acken, M.D., P.A., 865 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2004)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Edelmida Rodriguez, 960 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. HOY, 927 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Lucky v. Ryan, 973 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)