NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ALBERTHA NELSON, RESPONDENT

Fla. 5th DCA | 2012-01-06
No. 5D11-876
GRIFFIN, PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
83 So. 3d 863 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2012)

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.

Synopsis

Nationwide Insurance sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring production of all home inspection reports generated by HSA Engineers over a three-year period. The appellate court granted the petition, finding the discovery request overbroad and unduly burdensome, and quashed the trial court's order.


Holding

The discovery order was overbroad and unduly burdensome, and the trial court's order was quashed. Certiorari was the appropriate remedy because the discovery order departed from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury to the petitioner.


Headnotes

[1] A discovery request is overbroad and unduly burdensome when compliance would require significant financial expenditure and extensive man-hours.

[2] Certiorari is the appropriate remedy for a discovery order that departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury, leaving no adequate remedy on a…

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

Key Quotes

“certiorari is the appropriate remedy when a discovery order 'departs from the essential requirements of law and thus causes a material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.'”

Establishes the standard for when certiorari is appropriate as a remedy for discovery orders

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Albertha Nelson submitted a homeowner's insurance claim to Nationwide for losses from allegedly improperly applied stucco. Nationwide retained HSA Eng…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

*864PER CURIAM.

Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida seeks certiorari review of a trial court discovery order requiring it to produce all home inspection reports that HSA Engineers and Scientists generated on its behalf during a three-year period. Determining that the discovery request is overbroad and unduly burdensome, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order.

After Albertha Nelson suffered losses and damages to her home from allegedly improperly applied stucco, she submitted a claim for coverage to her homeowner’s insurer, Nationwide. As part of its evaluation of Nelson’s claim, Nationwide retained HSA to inspect her home. Nationwide subsequently denied Nelson’s claim for coverage on the ground that the losses and damages were not covered by Nelson’s insurance contract.

Nelson then filed a lawsuit against Nationwide for breach of the parties’ insurance contract. During discovery, Nelson requested certain documents from Nationwide in order to determine the extent of HSA’s relationship with Nationwide in an effort to show that HSA was biased towards Nationwide. Specifically, Nelson sought production of all home inspection reports HSA generated for Nationwide throughout the country for the five-year period preceding the inspection of her home. Nationwide objected arguing, among other things, that the request was overbroad and unduly burdensome. The trial court ordered discovery of all such reports, but limited the timeframe to the three-year time period preceding the inspection of Nelson’s home, and allowed Nationwide to redact any information from the reports which identified proprietary information or work product.

Nationwide filed a motion for rehearing in which it argued that complying with the trial court’s order would cost Nationwide in excess of $82,000.00, and require over 400 man hours to accomplish. In addition, Nationwide’s counsel would be required to spend a minimum of 30 minutes per report reviewing and redacting information, as well as additional time discussing the content of each report with Nationwide and preparing a privilege log. Nationwide estimated that the privilege log would take approximately twelve minutes per report at an hourly attorney rate of $150.00. Affidavits were attached to the motion supporting these claims. The motion for rehearing was denied.

In Allstate Insurance. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla.1999), our supreme court explained that “certiorari is the appropriate remedy when a discovery order ‘departs from the essential requirements of law and thus causes a material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.’ ” Id. at 999 (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94-95 (Fla.1995)). See also Stihl Se. Inc. v. Green Thumb Lawn & Garden Center Newco, Inc., 974 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). In this case, the trial court’s discovery order meets the criteria for certiorari relief. Accordingly, we grant Nationwide’s petition and quash the trial court’s order. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Binder, 746 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that plaintiffs were not allowed to obtain documents showing identity of all cases in last three years in which defendant’s doctors were retained to perform exams).

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw