ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
GERALDINE GIBBS ET AL., 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.
Allstate Insurance sought review of a trial court's discovery order requiring disclosure of its claim file and denial of a motion to dismiss punitive damages. The court granted certiorari, holding that the discovery order departed from the essential requirements of law regarding work product protection and that punitive damages could not be maintained without showing a willful and independent tort separate from breach of contract.
The court held that the discovery order denying protection for work product constituted a departure from essential legal requirements warranting certiorari relief, and that respondents failed to demonstrate the required willful and independent tort separate from breach of contract necessary to sustain a punitive damages claim.
[1] Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to review discovery orders that constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law and will cause material injury for which…
[2] Discovery orders concerning the work product of a party litigant are traditionally reviewable by certiorari under proper circumstances.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 order denying petitioner-defendant's objection to certain discovery based upon the work product doctrine constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law which will cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below”
Establishes that the discovery order violated the work product doctrine and warranted certiorari review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllstate issued an insurance policy to the Gibbs covering personal and real property. The Gibbs filed a breach of contract action alleging bad faith r…
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 Refusal To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
MAGER, Chief Judge.
Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal in this cause we are of the opinion that the order denying petitioner-defendant’s objection to certain discovery based upon the work product doctrine constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law which will cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below for which a remedy by appeal would be inadequate., Pic v. Hoyt Development Co., Inc., 309 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); see also Stuart v. Hertz Corporation, 302 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Beta Eta House Corporation v. Gregory, 230 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
Moreover, having determined that certiorari will lie we are also of the opinion that the order denying the petitioner-defendant’s motion to dismiss the punitive damage count in respondent-plaintiffs’ complaint should be vacated and set aside. 5 Fla.Jur., Certiorari, § 12, cf. Schoenrock v. Ballard, 185 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 303 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1974).
In the proceedings below the petitioner-defendant had issued an insurance policy to the respondents-plaintiffs covering certain personal and real property. Respondents filed a breach of contract action seeking compensatory and punitive damages as a result of petitioner’s (bad faith) refusal to pay for certain losses incurred by said respondents as a result of a fire. Interrogatories filed by the respondents sought discovery of the entire content of petitioner’s claim file in furtherance of its bad faith allegation and claim for punitive damages.
Traditionally, discovery orders in actions at law have been reviewable by certiorari under the proper circumstances, particularly where the work product of a party litigant is the subject matter of such dis covery. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1957); Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1970); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Fields, 262 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Nationwide Insurance Co. Pinellas Cty. v. Monroe, 276 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); see in particular, Allstate Insurance Company v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Additionally, with respect to the claim for punitive damages, it is clear from the face of the pleadings and from a reading of the applicable decisions that respondent has failed to demonstrate, as is required, the existence of a willful and independent tort separate and distinct from the breach of contract. Masciarelli v. Maco Supply Corp., 224 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1969); Henry Morrison Flagler Museum v. Lee, 268 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); see World Insurance Company v. Wright, 308 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
An insuror’s bad faith refusal to settle a claim of its insured is not per se a willful and independent tort giving rise to a claim for damages. MacDonald v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company, 276 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
See also Butchikas v. Travelers Indemnity Company, Supreme Court of Florida Case No. 47,733 opinion filed June 30, 1976; Baxter v. Royal Indemnity Company, 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) cert. discharged 317 So. 2d 725 (Fla.1975).
Accordingly, certiorari is granted and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CROSS and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)…ants to seek certiorari review of the discovery order that generally follows a lower court’s denial of a motion to strike a punitive damages claim. Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Campbell, 433 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 340 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. dismissed, 354 So. 2d 980 (1977). In this posture, the rationale for reviewing the punitive damages claim is the court’s authority to dispose of all contested issues in a case once it has jurisdiction. See Gibbs, 340 So. 2…
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…), review denied, 441 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1983); Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018, 1018-19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). While certiorari may be used to obtain review of discovery orders, with the exception of the decision in Allstate Insurance Company v. Gibbs, 340 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert, dismissed, 354 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1977), this court has until recently held the extraordinary writ of certiorari could not be used to obtain review of orders denying motions to dismiss. In Chalfonte Development Corporation v.…1 / 3
-
Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Romer, 432 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…tion only if the facts involving the bad faith refusal amount to an independent tort such as fraud or intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Butchikas v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 343 So. 2d 816 (Fla.1976); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Gibbs, 340 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. dismissed 354 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1977); MacDonald v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 276 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and Hanft v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 402 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). As we said…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Maxwell J. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1957)
- Foy Baxter and Annie Smith Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)
- Beta ETA House Corp. v. Gregory, 230 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Foy Baxter and Annie Smith Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 317 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1975)
- Frank M. Stuart, M.D., P.A. v. The HERTZ Corp., 302 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 303 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1974)
- MacDONALD v. The Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 276 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Lach v. Lach, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Henry Morrison Flagler Museum v. LEE, 268 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)