GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
THOMAS A. MOULTROP AND PATRICIA GUY MOULTROP, 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.
GEICO's petition for certiorari is granted; attorney-client privileged communications from the underlying coverage case are not discoverable in a bad faith action unless the insurer places counsel's advice at issue.
Attorney-client privileged communications between an insurer and its counsel during an underlying coverage action are not discoverable in a subsequent bad faith claim merely because the claim involves bad faith allegations.
[1] Attorney-client privileged communications between an insurer and its counsel during an underlying coverage action are not discoverable in a bad faith action unless the in…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[W]hen an insured party brings a bad faith claim against its insurer, the insured may not discover those privileged communications that occurred between the insurer and its counsel during the underlying action.”
Court's statement of the controlling rule from Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.
GEICO sought to prevent discovery of attorney-client privileged documents from its litigation file in an underlying coverage case. A special master or…
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 Bad Faith Action cases and more on FLexlaw
GEICO General Insurance Company petitions for a writ of certiorari to review an order that allows discovery of attorney-client privileged communication in a bad faith action.
Following an in camera inspection, a special master determined that a number of documents from the insurer’s attorney’s litigation file in the underlying coverage case were privileged but discoverable in this bad faith action. The special master accepted respondents’ argument that attorney-client information from the underlying suit would be discoverable unless it pertained to bad faith aspects of the case.
We agree with petitioner that the order is contrary to Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., 74 So.3d 1064 (Fla.2011), and departs from the essential requirements of the law. Availability of the attorney-client privilege does not depend on whether this is a bad faith case or whether the information related to legal advice about bad faith. “[W]hen an insured party brings a bad faith claim against its insurer, the insured may not discover those privileged communications that occurred between the insurer and its counsel during the underlying action.” Id. at 1068. Absent an exception, such as when the insurer places counsel’s advice at issue, attorney-client privileged information from the underlying suit is not discoverable in a bad faith case. Id. at 1068-69.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the portion of the order that requires production of attorney-client privileged material on the grounds that the privileged information did not pertain to the bad faith aspects of this case.
GROSS, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Peter R. Genovese, M.D. v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2011)