21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 493d
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2106GARAInsurance — Discovery — Work product — Error to compel production of adjuster’s notes
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. CO., Petitioner, vs. NEW HORIZON MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, CORP. a/a/o Alvaro Garavito, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 12-467 AP. March 7, 2014. An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County. Counsel: Nancy W. Gregoire, for Appellant. George A. David, for Appellee.
(Before BAGLEY, ARECES and LINDSEY, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.) As in the very similar case of State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez (12-436 AP) [21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 493c], which we are deciding concurrently with this one, 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; but based upon the Third District Court of Appeal’s recent opinion stating that “notes in the claims file” are prohibited from disclosure, we must quash the order below which compelled the production of adjustor’s notes.1 See Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379, 380 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D2226a]. (BAGLEY, ARECES and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1As in the Menendez case, wereviewed the documents ordered to be produced in the instant case, which were filed under seal, and we agree with the trial court’s determination that they are “Adjuster’s Notes.”
* * *
