23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 213a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2303SATUInsurance — Discovery — Trial court erred in ordering insurer to produce adjuster’s notes where insured is not pursuing bad faith claim
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SANDRA SATURNO, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 13-224 AP. L.T. Case No. 11-14665 SP 25 (04). August 18, 2015. On certiorari review of the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Nuria Saenz, Judge. Counsel: Nancy W. Gregoire of Kirschbaum, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC and Abbi S. Freifeld of Roig, Tutan, Rosenberg, Martin & Stoller, P.A., for Petitioner. George A. David of George A. David, P.A., for Respondent.
(Before GLAZER, FERNANDEZ, and MIRANDA, JJ.)
(FERNANDEZ, Judge.) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) seeks certiorari review of a non-final order requiring it to produce adjuster’s notes from its claims file that were prepared before receipt of respondent’s pre-suit demand letter. In addressing the certiorari petition, State Farm, as the petitioner, must demonstrate that the lower court departed from the essential requirements of the law, thereby causing irreparable injury which cannot be adequately remedied on appeal following final judgment. CNL Resort Hotel, L.P. v. City of Doral, 991 So. 2d 417, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D2265a]. For the reasons provided below, we hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. Accordingly, we quash the trial court order requiring State Farm to produce its adjuster’s notes in its claim file documents.
In Castle Key Insurance Company v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379, 380 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D2226a], the Third District Court of Appeal determined that where the insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather 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 and has not been resolved. See State Farm Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 86 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D1051a] (trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring petitioner to produce its entire claim file); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly D2514e] (appellate court quashing the entire order of production of the insurer’s claim files, manuals, guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures).
Upon review of the case at bar, the trial court conducted an in camera inspection of the adjuster’s notes before ordering that they be produced. In ordering State Farm to produce eighteen (18) pages of adjuster’s notes from its claim file, the trial court concluded in part:
7. The Adjuster’s Notes reflect the actions taken by the adjustor in the course of business which is adjusting claims. The business of insurance companies is to sell insurance policies, adjust claims and make payment if coverage exists.
8. Prior to receipt of a Demand Letter, these Adjustor’s Notes are generated in the ordinary course of business and not prepared in response to an event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a future claim.
9. Therefore the work product privilege does not apply.
10. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production is Granted.
11. The Defendant shall produce all Adjustor’s Notes created prior to receipt of a Demand Letter within 45 days.
There is no record evidence suggesting that the insured was pursuing a bad faith claim. Rather, the complaint alleges a breach of contract. Under the rationale of Castle Key Insurance Company, the trial court erred when it ordered State Farm to produce its adjuster’s notes from its claims file. For these reasons, the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. Accordingly, we QUASH the May 8, 2013 Order to Produce After In-Camera Inspection.1
State Farm and Sandra Saturno filed motions for appellate attorney’s fees. State Farm’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees is hereby conditionally GRANTED. On remand, the trial court is to consider both entitlement and amount. Sandra Saturno’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees is hereby DENIED. (GLAZER and MIRANDA, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1Although the respondent makes the argument that the petitioner cannot prove its position in the absence of a transcript, this Court follows the rationale in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. South Miami Health Center, Inc., 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 27a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Oct. 16, 2013) (noting that we are presented with the same materials which the trial court had before it when it made its decision).
