STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
ORLANDO MENENDEZ
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.
State Farm appealed a discovery order requiring production of adjustor's notes from its claim file in a first-party, non-bad-faith PIP insurance case. The appellate court reversed, holding that adjustor's notes in claims files are prohibited from disclosure under Florida law.
Adjustor's notes in claims files are prohibited from disclosure in cases such as this, and therefore the trial court's order compelling their production must be quashed.
[1] An in camera inspection is a commendable practice for a trial court to determine the nature of documents and their potential privilege before ruling on production.
[2] Adjuster's notes within a claims file in a first-party, non-bad-faith PIP case are generally prohibited from disclosure.
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“The trial court is to be commended for conducting an in camera inspection in order to determine the nature of the documents sought to be produced, and whether they were subject to the Work-product privilege, prior to ruling upon the production issue.”
The court praised the trial court's methodology in examining the documents before ruling on discoverability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm sought to avoid producing adjustor's notes from its claim file in a first-party PIP (personal injury protection) insurance case that did no…
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.
PER CURIAM
_ State Farm seeks review of an order requiring it to produce adjustor’s notes from its claim file in a first-paity, non-bad-faith PIP ease. The trial court is to be commended for conducting an in camera inspection in order to determine the nature of the documents sought to be produced, and whether they were subject to the Work-product privilege, prior to ruling upon the production issue. See State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. C0. v. South Miami Health Center, .Inc., 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 27a (Fla. 11"‘ Jud. Cir. Oct 16, 2013); -J:.'.I Ln r -\-Q,-Lj ! .\ .~-' pppes1eete°%“F‘““°‘3 A-=-... I I I I I E _.,—>-»-.»—-. _-,-.. P.‘,_.__.__,. 1.r'
F.
r -Eiifiifi
IIZ
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES
; TO FILE A MOTION FOR REHEARING, _ _ ‘
AND IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. .3 1.-.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THEP Q; . L
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
. AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; __: f.
FLORIDA
. *2 F; I ---I HI’ I v.-1
APPELLATE DIVISION
CASE NO. I2-436 AP
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO.
_p INS. L0,, 1x‘fi,\\ Petitioner, A vs. LI ORLANDO MENENDEZ, <==>€ Opinion filed , 2014. An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent I (4 71 NANCY w. GREGOIRE, ESQ., for Appellant. GEORGE A. DAVlD., for Appellee. Before JERALD BAGLEY, BARBARA ARECES and NORMA LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM
_ State Farm seeks review of an order requiring it to produce adjustor’s notes from its claim file in a first-paity, non-bad-faith PIP ease. The trial court is to be commended for conducting an in camera inspection in order to determine the nature of the documents sought to be produced, and whether they were subject to the Work-product privilege, prior to ruling upon the production issue. See State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. C0. v. South Miami Health Center, .Inc., 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 27a (Fla. 11"‘ Jud. Cir. Oct 16, 2013); -J:.'.I Ln r -\-Q,-Lj ! .\ .~-' pppes1eete°%“F‘““°‘3 A-=-... [*2] i I |.. ;. -in-P. I Z I|r _| I I | I I State Farm v. South Miami Health Center, Inc. a/a/0 Bullen, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 12a (Fla. 11"‘ Jud. Cir. October I2, 2011); State Farm v. South Miami Health Center, Inc. a/a/0 Jimenez, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 968a (Fla. 11'“ Jud. Cir. August 18, 2011); and State Farm v. South Miami Health Center, Inc. a/a/0 Herrera (I 0-249 AP &l1-433 AP). Upon our review of the documents ordered to be produced in the instant case, which were filed under seal, we agree with the trial court’s determination that they are “Adjuster’s Notes.” The trial court felt that these adjuster’s notes were not work-product and should be produced. However, in a recent case, the Third District Court of Appeal has specifically stated that, in cases such as this, “notes in the claims file” are prohibited from disclosure. Castle Key Ins. C0. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379, 380 n.l (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Based upon the Third’s ruling, we must quash the order below which compelled the production ofthe notes. _ BAGLEY, ARECES and LINDSEY, JJ., concur. _ 2__ i I |.. ;. -in-P. I Z I|r _| I I | I I State Farm v. South Miami Health Center, Inc. a/a/0 Bullen, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 12a (Fla. 11"‘ Jud. Cir. October I2, 2011); State Farm v. South Miami Health Center, Inc. a/a/0 Jimenez, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 968a (Fla. 11'“ Jud. Cir. August 18, 2011); and State Farm v. South Miami Health Center, Inc. a/a/0 Herrera (I 0-249 AP &l1-433 AP). Upon our review of the documents ordered to be produced in the instant case, which were filed under seal, we agree with the trial court’s determination that they are “Adjuster’s Notes.” The trial court felt that these adjuster’s notes were not work-product and should be produced. However, in a recent case, the Third District Court of Appeal has specifically stated that, in cases such as this, “notes in the claims file” are prohibited from disclosure. Castle Key Ins. C0. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379, 380 n.l (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Based upon the Third’s ruling, we must quash the order below which compelled the production ofthe notes. _ BAGLEY, ARECES and LINDSEY, JJ., concur. _ 2__