14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 486a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Interrogatory requesting identification of every entity contacted by insurer or its agents regarding claim is reasonable and likely to lead to admissible evidence relevant to material misrepresentation defense — Documents — Privileges — Work product — Requested documents prepared by insurer or its agents or in their possession prior to receipt of demand letter are not protected by work product privilege — Insurer’s underwriting guidelines are not protected work product and are relevant to claim that insurer would have charged higher premium but for material misrepresentation
PHYSICIANS MEDICAL CENTER NORTHSIDE, INC., as the assignee of KEYANNA WHITE, Plaintiff, vs. AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Small Claims Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2005-SC-009299, Division J. March 8, 2007. Eleni Derke, Judge. Counsel: James J. Woodruff, II, Woodruff Law Firm, P.L., Atlantic Beach, for Plaintiff. Alicia Lyons Laufer, Rubinton & Laufer, LLC, Davie, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and having been advised in premises and having heard argument of counsel, the Court finds that:
1. On February 13, 2006, Plaintiff served Defendant with Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.
2. Specifically, interrogatory number eight stated as follows:
Identify the name, address, phone number of every person or entity that has been contacted by Defendant or Defendant’s agents or anyone acting on Defendant’s behalf regarding this claim or its investigation of this claim and state the name, address, phone number, title of person who made this contact and date the contact was made. Whether this contact was made orally or by written communications.
3. Defendant responded as follows: “Objection. Overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
4. Defendant’s objection is unfounded. The Defendant is ordered to produce the names of the people with knowledge of the alleged material misrepresentation to Plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff’s request is reasonable and is likely to lead to admissible evidence relevant to the issues in this lawsuit.
6. On February 13, 2006, Plaintiff served Defendant with Plaintiff’s First Request for Production to Defendant.
7. Defendant responded to request numbers 1(a), 1(q), 1(r), 1(s), 1(ff)(i), 8, 11, 17, and 18 with objections based upon work product privilege.
8. Defendant is ordered to produce all documents requested that were prepared by it or its agent(s) or in their possession before the receipt of Plaintiff’s §627.736 pre-suit demand letter as such documents were not produced or collected in anticipation of litigation. Defendant is not being ordered to turn over any documents that are attorney-client privileged.
9. Defendant has raised the affirmative defense of material misrepresentation in this lawsuit. Therefore, the documents requested are discoverable.
10. The Court rejects Defendant’s argument that its underwriting guidelines are protected by the work product doctrine. Since the Defendant is attempting to defend this lawsuit by stating it would have charged a higher premium for the coverage afforded, the underwriting guidelines are at the core of its argument and therefore discoverable. Without the Defendant turning the underwriting guidelines over to the Plaintiff there is no other way Plaintiff will be able to acquire the underwriting guidelines.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery is Granted.
2. Defendant shall produce the interrogatory response and documents in response to Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce to Defendant ordered by this Court within ten (10) days.
