THE DOCTORS COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES RANDALL THOMAS A/K/A RANDY THOMAS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MILDRED THOMAS, DECEASED, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LUCY THOMAS, DECEASED, AND AS ASSIGNEE OF KENNETH W. BACKSTRAND, M.D. AND KENNETH W. BACKSTRAND & ASSOCIATES, M.D., P.A.; KENNETH W. BACKSTRAND, M.D. AND KENNETH W. BACKSTRAND AND ASSOCIATES, M.D., P.A., 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.
The Doctors Company sought certiorari review of a discovery order compelling production of its claims file and investigative documents before a coverage determination had been made in a declaratory judgment action. The court granted the petition and quashed the order, holding that premature disclosure of an insurer's claims materials before coverage issues are resolved departs from essential requirements of law.
An order compelling production of an insurer's claims file when the issue of coverage is unresolved constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law warranting certiorari relief. The petition for certiorari is granted and the discovery order is quashed.
[1] An order compelling production of an insurer's claims file before a coverage determination has been made constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.
[2] Premature disclosure of an insurer's claims file before a coverage determination can result in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal.
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“[A]n order compelling production of an insurer's claim file when the issue of coverage is unresolved has been held to constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law for which certiorari relief is appropriate.”
Establishes the legal standard that premature disclosure of claims files before coverage determination is reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Doctors Company issued an insurance policy to an insured who entered into an unauthorized settlement with a tort claimant. James Randall Thomas, a…
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 Insurance Coverage Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
The Doctors Company petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order that denies its motion for protective order and compels the production of The Doctors Company’s claims file and other investigative documents prior to any insurance coverage determination. Becausé the trial court’s order directs The Doctors Company to turn over protected materials before any coverage determination has been made, we grant the petition and quash the order.
This now consolidated lawsuit originated as a declaratory judgment action wherein The Doctors Company sought a declaration concerning its obligations under an insurance policy issued to an insured after the insured entered into an unauthorized settlement with a tort claimant. James Randall Thomas, the personal representative of the estate of the original tort claimant, subsequently filed an action asserting various claims against The Doctors Company including claims for both statutory and common-law bad faith. After the actions were consolidated, Thomas sought discovery of information related to The Doctors Company’s claims materials while the declaratory action remained pending.
We agree with The Doctors Company that the order compelling disclosure of its claims file and other related materials pri- or to any coverage determination departs from the essential requirements of the law. See e.g., Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Rajan, 93 So.3d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“[A]n order compelling production of an insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is unresolved has been held to constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law for which certiorari relief is appropriate.”); Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So.2d 779, 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Such premature disclosure results in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal. See e.g., Old Republic Nat’l. Title Ins. Co. v. HomeAmerican Credit, Inc., 844 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order under review.
Petition granted; order quashed.
KELLY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara de Comercio Latino-Americana DE LOS Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- OLD Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Homeamerican Credit, Inc., 844 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Govin T. Rajan, 93 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)