CASTLE KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
RAIMUNDO AND EUGENIA BENITEZ, 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.
Castle Key Insurance Company sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order compelling production of its claims file in a breach of contract action brought by insureds. The court held that discovery of an insurer's claims file is impermissible in a breach of contract action when the issue of coverage remains unresolved, and therefore quashed the trial court's order.
A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by compelling disclosure of an insurer's claims file when the insured is pursuing a breach of contract claim, rather than a bad faith claim, and the issue of coverage is still in dispute and has not been resolved.
[1] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by compelling disclosure of an insurer's claims file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not bee…
[2] Discovery concerning potential bad faith or other purported improprieties in defending a claim is impermissible unless and until it is determined that the policy provides…
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“discovery which concerns only potential issues of bad faith or other purported improprieties in defending [a] claim are wholly impermissible unless and until it is determined that the policy indeed provides coverage”
Establishes the foundational rule that claims file discovery is prohibited until 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 intelligenceThe insureds, Raimundo and Eugenia Benitez, filed a breach of contract action against Castle Key Insurance Company. The insureds served interrogatorie…
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 Breach Of Contract Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Castle Key Insurance Company filed this petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order dated June 10, 2013, which granted a motion to compel better answers to certain interrogatories filed by Raimundo and Eugenia Benitez (“the insureds”). Castle Key asserts that the trial court order departs from the essential requirements of law by requiring the production of its claims file within the context of a breach of contract action by the insureds, prior to the resolution of whether coverage exists. We agree.
Under established Florida law, “discovery which concerns only potential issues of bad faith or other purported improprieties in defending [a] claim are wholly impermissible unless and until it is determined that the policy indeed provides coverage.” Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So.3d 276, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So.3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[W]here the issue of coverage is still unresolved at the time of the insurer’s objection to the request for discovery of its claim file, the trial court departs from the essential requirements 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 an insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved.
Id. (citation, internal quotation, and alteration omitted).
Because the trial court order at issue directed the production of Castle Key’s “claims file” when the issue of coverage is still in dispute, the order departs from the essential requirements of law.1 *381Having determined that Castle Key’s petition is well-taken, we grant the petition, and quash the order on review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Premier Diagnostic Ctrs., LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…in cases such as this, we find not only that the wrong law was.applied below but also that an irreparable departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in manifest injustice has occurred as well. See Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“Because the trial court order at issue directed the production of Castle Key’s ‘claims file’ when the issue of coverage is still in dispute, the order departs from the essential requirements of law.”); State Farm Fla. Ins.…
-
Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 255 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…isure to provide discovery and proceed to trial regarding a claim that has not accrued, and may never accrue if Rodriguez is successful in his underlying claim,1 [*504] would constitute irreparable harm. See generally Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ; Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Atl. Hosp. of Fla., LLC, 93 So. 3d 501, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). At the outset, we note the difference between first-party and third-party spoliation claims. "First-party spoliation claims are claims…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Meir Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Nationwide Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. Cookie Roberta Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)