GRANADA INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
CARL RICKS, TRIANGLE FIRE, INC. AND GARY WENGLOSKI, 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.
Granada Insurance Company sought to quash a deposition order directed at its president in a coverage dispute. The court held that discovery regarding claims-handling policies and procedures is impermissible until the threshold issue of coverage is resolved.
Discovery concerning potential bad faith or improprieties in claims handling is wholly impermissible unless and until it is determined that the policy provides coverage. The deposition order was quashed as premature.
[1] Discovery concerning an insurer's claims handling policies and procedures is impermissible before a determination of coverage.
[2] Discovery regarding potential bad faith or other improprieties by an insurer is impermissible unless and until coverage is determined.
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“discovery which concerns only potential issues of bad faith or other purported improprieties in defending the claim are wholly impermissible unless and until it is determined that the policy indeed provides coverage”
Establishes the core holding that claims-handling discovery is barred before coverage is determined
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTriangle Fire, Inc. and an injured plaintiff sought insurance coverage under a liability policy issued by Granada Insurance Company for an accident al…
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 Opinion Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Triangle Fire, Inc. and an injured plaintiff joined in seeking insurance coverage under a liability policy issued by Granada Insurance Company for an accident allegedly caused by Triangle’s negligence. The company denied coverage.
While that issue remained unresolved, Granada sought protection from a notice of deposition directed by the plaintiff to the president of the company. Notwithstanding that he had no personal knowledge of the facts or handling of the case, the plaintiffs attorney argued that discovery was permitted to determine whether
... if there is a corporate policy in place that says to reject certain claims based on certain criteria and accept other claims based on other certain criteria, that’s something that’s going to flow *277from the top down. That’s going to be the president, the board, who are going to make those decisions ...
If there is a blanket policy out there from the company saying to deny all claims, I’m just throwing out a for instance, to deny all claims based on this, and you know, revisit them later, we’re entitled to know about that.
Adopting this argument, the trial judge permitted the deposition to go forward regarding the “policies and procedures concerning claims handling by Granada.”
We quash the order. Our decision is based upon the universally applied rule that discovery which concerns only potential issues of bad faith or other purported improprieties in defending the claim are wholly impermissible unless and until it is determined that the policy indeed provides coverage. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing that “discovery request [for] — internal procedural memos, claims manuals, and standards for proper investigation of claims — do, as the district court noted, appear irrelevant”); Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 643 So.2d 617, 619 (Fla.1994); Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 1991); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring insurer to produce documents regarding its policies and practices regarding the handling of claims in a coverage action); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce company policies and manuals as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farm, Inc., 754 So.2d 865, 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that a discovery order requiring disclosure of the insurer’s business practices was premature without a determination of the coverage issue); Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347, 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that when the issue of coverage has not been determined, it is a departure from the essential requirements of the law to order disclosure of the insurer’s claims handling manuals and materials).1
Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Atl. Hospitality OF Fla., LLC, 93 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…under the first-party insurance policy.’ ” Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Trans World Forwarding, Inc., 19 So. 3d 430, 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 960 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)); accord Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) and cases cited therein; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Certiorari is appropriate to quash a discovery relating to an insurer’s business practices and policies prior to [*…
-
Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Atl. Hospitality OF Fla., LLC., 57 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…al requirements of law because Atlantic Hospitality has not shown that the president’s deposition is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280.3 See Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276, 277 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). General Star has shown that its president is a manager, not an adjuster or other employee with personal knowledge of the factual disputes involved in the lawsuit. The injury that cannot be remedied in a subsequent, ple…
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 86 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (stating claims file documents are protected from disclosure in a breach of contract action without a bad faith claim and the issue of coverage not yet resolved); accord Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 960 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we quash the order dated March 7, 2012, but at this time deny cer-tiorari as to the order dated February 9, 2012. Certiorari gra…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2005)
- Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1991)
- Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co., 969 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2007)
- Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1985)
- Ellenwood v. S. United Life Ins. Co., 373 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 643 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1994)
- Koikos v. Travelers Ins. Co., 849 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2003)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Edelmida Rodriguez, 960 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- White v. State, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)