Case Search

Please select a category.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. CO., Petitioner, vs. ORLANDO MENENDEZ, Respondent.

21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 493c

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2106MENEInsurance — Discovery — Work product — Error to compel production of adjuster’s notes

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. CO., Petitioner, vs. ORLANDO MENENDEZ, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 12-436 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.) State Farm seeks review of an order requiring it to produce adjustor’s notes from its claim file in a first-party, non-bad-faith PIP case. 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. See State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. South Miami Health Center, Inc.21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 27a (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. Oct 16, 2013); State Farm v. South Miami Health Center, Inc. a/a/o Bullen19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 12a (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. October 12, 2011); State Farm v. South Miami Health Center, Inc. a/a/o Jimenez18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 968a (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. August 18, 2011); and State Farm v. South Miami Health Center, Inc. a/a/o Herrera (10-249 AP &11-433 AP) [21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 234b].

Upon our review of the documents ordered to be produced in the instant case, which were filed under seal, we agree with the trial court’s determination that they are “Adjuster’s Notes.” The trial court felt that these adjuster’s notes were not work-product and should be produced. However, in a recent case, the Third District Court of Appeal has specifically stated that, in cases such as this, “notes in the claims file” are prohibited from disclosure. Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez124 So. 3d 379, 380 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D2226a]. Based upon the Third’s ruling, we must quash the order below which compelled the production of the notes. (BAGLEY, ARECES and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Skip to content