NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
COOKIE ROBERTA DEMMO, TRUSTEE OF THE SONIA E. DANN TRUST, 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.
Nationwide Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling production of its claims notes, activity logs, and property loss documents in a first-party breach of contract action. The Florida District Court of Appeal quashed the discovery order, holding that claim file materials are not discoverable when coverage is in dispute, regardless of the work product designation.
A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law in compelling disclosure of an insurer's claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved. The controlling issue is not whether documents qualify as work product but rather the type of action brought—here a breach of contract claim rather than a bad faith claim.
[1] An insurer's claims file is generally not discoverable in a breach of contract action when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved.
[2] The determinative issue for compelling disclosure of an insurer's claim file is the type of action brought by the insured, not whether documents were prepared in anticipa…
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 primary rule that claim file disclosure is improper when coverage is disputed, regardless of work product status
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDemmo filed an insurance claim with Nationwide in January 2008 for sinkhole damage, which was approved and paid. In May 2009, Demmo filed a second cla…
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 First-Party Insurance Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s interlocutory order granting Cookie Roberta Demmo’s motion to compel production of Nationwide’s claims notes, activity logs, property loss notice information, and property loss notice forms in Demmo’s first-party breach of contract action against Nationwide.1 We grant the petition and quash the order.
On January 22, 2008, Demmo filed an insurance claim with Nationwide after her home sustained damage caused' by a sinkhole. Nationwide approved and paid out oh that claim. On May 4, 2009, Demmo filed a second claim with Nationwide for water intrusion that she alleged was related to the sinkhole. After investigating, Nationwide denied that claim on May 28, 2009. Demmo subsequently filed suit against Nationwide, alleging one count of breach of contract. In conjunction with that action, Demmo filed discovery requests. In response, Nationwide identified certain of the documents sought by Demmo as work product and refused to produce them. Demmo then filed a motion to compel, in which she noted that Nationwide “has. served a privilege log in the instant case claiming work-product privilege for approximately sixty-six pages of claims documents from January 22, 2008, through November 30, 2009.”
At the hearing on Demmo’s motion to compel, the trial, court made the finding *984that any documents created prior to Nationwide’s May 28, 2009, denial of Dem-mo’s claim were not work product because they were not prepared in anticipation of litigation. As such, the trial court entered a written, nonfinal order giving Nationwide forty-five days to “produce the subject documents (i.e., claims notes/activity log, property loss notice information, and property loss notice forms) from the date of the loss until the date the claim was denied, May 28, 2009.”
With regard to common law certio-rari review of nonfinal trial court orders, the petitioner must demonstrate that the challenged order departs from the essential requirements of law and that unless relief is granted he or she will suffer an injury for which he or she will have no adequate remedy on appeal. Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We conclude that Nationwide has met its burden here.
It appears, however, that the trial court focused on the question of what is and what is not work product with regard to the documents sought. But that is not the determinative issue. Rather, the issue turns on what type of action Demmo has brought. Here she is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of contract. “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 grant the petition and quash the discovery order.2
NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 86 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…mpelled the petitioner to produce its entire claim file. This order departs from the essential requirements of law and will cause irreparable harm which cannot be remedied on appeal following final judgment. See Nationwide Ins. Co. 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 2…
-
Castle KEY Ins. Co. v. Raimundo and Eugenia Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…equirements of law in overruling the insurer’s objection.”). In considering objections to discovery requests for claims file materials, the “determinative issue” is “what type of action” the insured has brought. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Where, as here, the insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of eon-tract[,][a] trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law in compelling disclosure of the contents of…
-
Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 291 So. 3d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…y of Florida, LLC, 93 So. 3d 501 (Fla. - 3 - 3d DCA 2012); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 86 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). See also, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DC…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Northup v. Herbert W. Acken, M.D., P.A., 865 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2004)
- Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)