UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
PORTER P. STARK, 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.
Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company sought a writ of certiorari to quash a discovery order requiring production of its underwriting guidelines and procedures related to homeowner policies and credit reports from 2004-2006. The court dismissed the petition, finding Universal failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for certiorari relief.
The court dismissed the petition, holding that Universal failed to demonstrate irreparable harm necessary for certiorari relief. The court concluded that because Stark abandoned his claim to 2005-2006 materials and Universal abandoned its objections, there was no material injury warranting relief. Additionally, Universal's assertion of proprietary privilege in the petition, unsupported by factual foundation in the record, was insufficient.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari is appropriate for a discovery order that departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury, leaving no adequate…
[2] A party seeking certiorari review of a discovery order must demonstrate irreparable harm.
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“Certiorari is the appropriate remedy when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceeding in the trial court, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.”
Establishes the legal standard for obtaining certiorari relief from a discovery order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUniversal was ordered to produce underwriting guidelines, standards, policies and procedures regarding homeowner policy issuance to applicants with pr…
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 Proprietary Information cases and more on FLexlaw
Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) petitions for a writ of certiorari, requesting that this court quash the order compelling it to produce “underwriting guidelines, standards, policies and procedures regarding the issuance of homeowner’s policies to applicants with prior bankruptcies and regarding the obtaining of credit reports or other financial reports on policy applicants from 2004-2006.” Alternatively, Universal requests this court to limit production to materials relevant to the insurance company’s decision to issue a homeowner’s policy to respondent Porter P. Stark. Because Universal has not demonstrated irreparable harm, the petition is dismissed.
In its petition, Universal concedes that the requested materials that were in effect for March 2004 are subject to produc*507tion, but it contends that the 2005 and 2006 materials are irrelevant and proprietary in nature and thus the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it ordered their production. Stark’s response states that he is no longer seeking production of the 2005 or 2006 underwriting guidelines, a position he communicated to counsel for Universal who apparently never responded to Stark’s letter.
Certiorari is the appropriate remedy when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceeding in the trial court, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993, 999 (Fla.1999). Universal has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. Stark has abandoned any claim of entitlement to the materials that Universal seeks to shield, and in turn, Universal has abandoned its objection to producing the remaining materials. Even without these concessions, we would still conclude that Universal is not entitled to relief because it made no claim in the trial court that the materials at issue were proprietary. The perfunctory assertion of privilege in its petition to this court, which is without any factual support in the record, is too little, too late.
Dismissed.
DAVIS, J., and GALLEN, THOMAS M., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. Vander Meiden, 56 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…al injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceeding in the trial court, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993, 999 (Fla.1999). Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stark, 8 So. 3d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). “Cer-tiorari is rarely available to review orders denying discovery because in most cases the harm can be corrected on appeal.” Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see a…
-
BAP Newleaf, LLC v. Hillcrest Bank, 198 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is hereby dismissed as moot. See Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stark, 8 So. 3d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Prime Computer, Inc. v. Mulholland, 571 So. 2d 515, 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hilton Int’l Co. v. Londono, 995 So. 2d 504, 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (table decision). VILLANTI, C.J., and MORRIS and BLACK, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999)