STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY
v.
FLORIDA WELLNESS & REHABILITATION CENTER A/A/O HIL

11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. | 2015-04-30
No. 2014-000249-AP-01
1 FLCA 4141 Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, Appellate Division (2015)

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.

Synopsis

State Farm seeks certiorari review of a trial court order compelling production of its claim file materials in a declaratory relief and breach of contract case without bad faith allegations. The appellate court granted the petition, finding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering disclosure of privileged claim file materials in a non-bad faith case.


Holding

The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in requiring production of claim file materials. In non-bad faith cases, claim files are generally not subject to discovery because they are either irrelevant or protected by work product privilege. File notes and documents specific to handling of an assignee's claim are not discoverable in non-bad faith cases.


Headnotes

[1] An insurer's claim file materials are generally not subject to discovery in cases that do not involve bad faith claims.

[2] In non-bad faith actions, the determinative issue in considering objections to discovery requests for claims file materials is the type of action the insured has brought.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“In cases that do not involve bad faith claims, the contents of an insurance claim file are generally not subject to discovery because they are either irrelevant, protected by the work product privilege, or both.”

Establishes the foundational rule that claim files are protected from discovery in non-bad faith cases

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

State Farm was involved in a declaratory relief and breach of contract dispute with Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center. The trial court issued 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.

Opinion of the Court

State Fann seeks certiorari review of a non-final order requiring production of various documents from its claim file in a declaratory relief and breach of contract case with no bad faith claims. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by compelling production of certain insurer claim file materials, including file notes and various documents specific to the handling of the Assignee's individual claim. Where a petitioner seeks appellate relief from a trial court's interlocutory discovery order, the petition must pass a three-prong test establishing: (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of trial, (3) that cannot be corrected on post judgment appeal." Barker v. Barker, 909 So. 2d 333, 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). For reasons discussed in more detail below, State Fann's petition satisfies this test. In cases that do not involve bad faith claims, the contents of an insurance claim file are generally not subject to discovery because they are either irrelevant, protected by the work product privilege, or both. Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121, 1123 (Fla. 2005), Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 960 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). In Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 24 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), the Court provided guidance on what types of cases lend toward protecting the claim file from discovery, and what types of claim file documents are entitled to protection. The Court determined that "[i]n considering objections to discovery requests for claims file materials, the 'determinative issue' is 'what type of action' the insured has brought." Castle Key, 124 So. 2d at 380. Where a plaintiff seeks relief for breach of contract, 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. Id. While neither party to the instant petition argues that coverage is disputed in the underlying case, there is no doubt that other substantive issues remain unresolved - namely, breach of contract and declaratory judgment issues. As to claim file materials entitled to protection, the Court determined that file notes and various documents specific to the handling of an assignee's claim are not discoverable in nonbad faith cases. Castle Key, 124 So. 3d at 381, n. 1., citing Nationwide Insurance Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 at 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). A review of the instant claim file confirms that it is comprised of the type of material deemed privileged in Castle Key. [*3] For these reasons, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. Accordingly, we QUASH the lower court order requiring production of Petitioner' s claim file materials. HERSCH, and LUCK, JJ., concur. ROBERT tUCK ~~"'---_/_-


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw