MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

v.

CITYSTAR REHAB CENTER, A/A/O JOSE INFANTE

Freeman, J. _ :5 The issue presented by this petition is whether the documents required to be produced in the December 16, 2013 Order are protected from discovery under the work-product privilege.2 Since we have determined that the l We wish to note that Judge Firtel participated in this case but retired prior to the rendition ofthe opinion. 2 We reject without further comment Citystar’s remaining arguments, including its argument that Mercury failed to present a suffieient record of the proceedings below, and that Mercury admitted coverage was not an issue. CASE NO. l4-O¹³ Citystar Rehabilitation Center (Citystar), the respondent, propounded discovery requests to Mercury.³ These documents included portions of adjuster’s notes, presuit demand worksheet, automobile lst report forms, new loss checklist, photographs of vehicle, intemal Mercury correspondence, vehicle registration search results, claim search for claimant, invoices for interpreting services, and tracking information and delivery confirmation of correspondence sent to claimant, Citystar, Florida Mammogram, and Roig Ortho &Rehab Center. “[G]enerally, an insurer’s claim and litigation files constitute work product and are protected from production,” unless the “insurance company is sued for bad faith.” Allstate Indemnity C0. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121, ll23 (Fla. 2005). This nearly categorical rule protecting the claim file from discovery applies when issues of coverage, liability and damages are contested. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C0. v. O’Hearn , 975 So. 2d 633,637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“until the obligation to provide coverage and damages has been determined, a party is not entitled to discovery related to the claims filed. . .”). However, notwithstanding the fact that coverage is at issue, a party is entitled to have the trial court conduct an in camera inspection of the withheld documents to ensure that each document properly meets the specific criteria of the work-product privilege. See State Farm Florida Ins. C0. v. Aloni, I01 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) citing t⁰ C0. v. Holden 642 So 2d. 1139, 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Toward this end, Third District Court of Appeal has recently held that “case law prohibiting the disclosure of ‘claims file’ material³ Citystar Rehabilitation Center claims PIP benefits as an assignee of Jose Infante, who was allegedly injured while a passenger in a vehicle driven by a Mercury insured. [*3] I A clearly encompasses items such as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and property loss notice forms, which are all specific to the handling of a claim.” Castle Key Ins. C0. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379, 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); See also Nationwide Ins. Co. ofFlorida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (claim notes/activity log, property loss notice information and property loss notice forms were not subject to disclosure.) The Castle court further indicated that “written communications regarding the claim” and “docimients relied upon Fnr the rleninl nf the elnim” wnnld nnt he snhient tn disnlnsnre when nnvemoe was at issue L\IA vAn\1 »v@A‘»; v1. vlxv vu»AAAA 1-vv-A» A.l.\II vv Liv-n-\/Jttv \r\/ ~vua>lvA\1~.ovw0-v‘ vvllv--A ‘V----Di

H.-..

wrv 1...,‘-v. Castle Key Ins. C0., 124 So. 3d at 381; See also State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 20l2)(activity log notes, emails, and photographs in insurer’s claim file were not subject to disclosure prior to a determination of coverage.) In another case, the Third District Court of Appeal held that a “defendant’s surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were protected by the work product privilege.” State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Moreover, in State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), the Second District Court of Appeal held that claims files, investigative reports and adjuster notes are “either irrelevant to the first party dispute that this case presents or are privileged work product.” A review of the documents at issue in this case show that the first seventy two (72) pages appear to be “notes in the claims file,” along with the handwritten presuit demand worksheet. Ftuther, the documents consist of property loss information and property loss notice forms, such as the automobile 1st report forms, new loss checklist, and photographs of the vehicle. As case law has shown, all such documents appear to be protected from disclosure where coverage or damages is at issue. The documents also contain invoices for interpreter services for the EUO of the claimant (a no show), a certificate of non-appearance for claimant’s EUO, and tracking infomiation and delivery confirmation for correspondence sent to claimant, Citystar, Florida Mammogram, and Roig Ortho &Rehab Center. Additionally, shipment request forms and return of service documents with invoices also appear in these documents. Although there appears to be no cases directly addressing these type of documents and the work product privilege, these items appear [*4] I ~ A to fall within the category of materials that are either irrelevant to the first party dispute or are privileged work product, and therefore, not subject to discovery.⁴ Genden and Firtel, JJ., Concur. ‘*"“ rare: A

A.

F-»=°=ir-‘T³ :f“t!‘e:t!?1F;',=1*.*r r2,?a§§’r. '.i*..¢~,~ l.,l‘._;;",.',',1“7 ar;FzrasEi*;;“" , ' TE " 1"» sv q,-.., . . I t³ mt.’ ‘l...€hiJ?miL?il.r..⁴ A daily scan summary dated January 15, 2014 has been included in the documents under review. This docmnent could not have been considered by the trial court in its Order dated December 16, 2013. Therefore, this document was not considered for review by this appellate court