24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 202a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2403SANGInsurance — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in ordering insurer to produce documents from its claim file to medical provider in first party non-bad-faith case — Further, documents trial court ordered produced were shielded from discovery either by attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, or both

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. GABLES MR(A) a/a/o ARACELI SANGINETO, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-199 AP. L.T. Case No. 2013012092SP25. June 8, 2016. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari from Judge Don S. Cohn. Counsel: Nancy W. Gregoire and Jamie R. Martin, for Petitioner. Marlene S. Reiss, and Kenneth B. Schurr, for Respondent.

(Before, MIRANDA, DIAZ, and DE LA O, JJ.)

(DE LA O, J.) This Court — yet again — addresses on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari a trial court order giving the assignee of insurance benefits access to an insurance company’s claims file. The trial court, after an in camera review, ordered Petitioner to produce a number of documents from its claims file.

It appears that regardless of how often these orders are quashed by panels of this Court, plaintiffs continue to demand documents from the claims files of insurance companies — and trial courts continue to issue orders giving them such access. The Third District Court of Appeal’s ruling in Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D2226a] should have resolved this issue. We are guardedly hopeful that the Third District Court of Appeal’s most recent decision on this topic, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Premier Diagnostic Centers (a/a/o Sherry Dujon, Delores Lancaster, Maria Lopez), 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA) [41 Fla. L. Weekly D278a], rev. denied, 2016 WL 3002460 (Fla., May 25, 2016),¹ will finally provide the clarity needed by both plaintiffs and trial courts.

In Premier Diagnostic Centers, the Third District Court of Appeal granted a writ of certiorari and quashed “three trial court orders requiring State Farm, in three first-party non-bad-faith cases, to produce portions of its adjusters’ claims files to a medical care provider”

[b]ecause this and other courts have repeatedly held that an insurer’s claim file is not discoverable in cases such as this . . . See Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D2226a] (“Because the trial court order at issue directed the production of Castle Key’s ‘claims file’ when the issue of coverage is still in dispute, the order departs from the essential requirements of law.”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D85b] (cautioning that a trial court departs from the essential requirements of law in permitting discovery of claim file materials, including adjuster’s notes in the claim file, while the coverage litigation has not concluded); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 86 So. 3d 1198, 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D1051a] (recognizing the claim file protection); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [36 fla. L. Weekly D707a] (concluding that “requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal”) (quoting Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D559b]); Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. HomeAmerican Credit, Inc., 844 So. 2d 818, 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D1214c] (“[A] party is not entitled to discovery of an insurer’s claim file . . . in an action for insurance benefits . . . until the insurer’s obligation to provide coverage has been established.”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D330a] (confirming that an insurer’s claim files, investigative reports, and notes “are either irrelevant to the first-party dispute that this case presents or are privileged work product”); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino — Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D815a] (“When the issue of insurance coverage is unresolved and at issue in pending court proceedings, a trial court must not order an insurer to produce its claims files and other work product documents.”); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly D2514e] (concluding “[i]n this proceeding for certiorari, we quash in its entirety an order of production upon the holdings that (a) State Farm’s claim files, manuals, guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant to the first party dispute involved in this case”).

Id. at 575-76 (citations omitted).

Moreover, even if the Third District Court of Appeal had not issued State Farm v. Premier Diagnostic Centers earlier this year, we would nevertheless quash the trial court’s order. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law because the documents the trial court ordered produced to Premier Diagnostic Centers are shielded from discovery by either the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine, and in some instances both. Therefore, even if the Respondent were correct that it is entitled to discovery of non-privileged documents in an insurance company’s claims file, the documents which the trial court ordered produced are privileged and not subject to discovery.

For these reasons, this Court grants the Petition, quashes the April 30, 2014 Order Requiring Production of Documents on Privilege Log Following In Camera Inspection. ( MIRANDA, DIAZ, and DE LA O, JJ., concur.)

__________________

¹The Third District Court of Appeal’s ruling in State Farm v. Premier Diagnostic Centers, is binding upon this Court. See State v. Washington, 114 So. 3d 182, 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D1535a]. As the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly articulated, “[t]he decision of the district courts of appeal represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court.” Stanfill v. State, 384 So. 2d 141, 143 (Fla. 1980).