2006

31 Fla. L. Weekly D703a

Insurance — Discovery — Where insurer transferred its claim file to attorney it hired to represent insured in negligence suit, and insurer subsequently instituted declaratory judgment action to resolve coverage issue, trial court in declaratory judgment action departed from essential requirements of law in issuing protective order precluding attorney from disclosing contents of claim file to insured — At the time he received the claim file, attorney was the attorney and agent for insured alone, despite the fact that his representation was paid for by insurer — Trial court order improperly interferes with relationship between insured and its attorney

31 Fla. L. Weekly D848c

Jurisdiction — Forum non conveniens — Insurer’s declaratory judgment action regarding coverage provided by policy and duty to defend — Location of witnesses is not important in dispute involving question of law — Because neither party would be significantly undermined or favored by one forum over another, private interests are in equipoise — Where coverage question in case has direct connection to class actions pending in Florida, public interest factor favors Florida as forum — Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 31 Fla. L. Weekly D368b

31 Fla. L. Weekly D116a

Insurance — Credit life — Beneficiary’s action against insurer which denied coverage under credit life policy on ground that decedent was ineligible for coverage because of his medical history, alleging fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and first-party bad faith — Discovery — Order compelling discovery did not improperly compel insurer to disclose information that was protected by work product doctrine, but instead made clear that work product materials were not ordered to be produced and that if work product issue arose later, trial court would address the matter upon appropriate motion — Order did not improperly compel production of information about claim files, claims handling practices, and business policies before coverage had been established — Complaint included causes of action other than bad faith, and trial court properly found that documents sought were within scope of discovery as to those claims — With regard to insurer’s argument that discovery requested was not relevant, proper test for discovery purposes is not relevance, but whether discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence — Moreover, insurer’s corporate representative has already testified extensively at his deposition regarding the topics at issue without objection — No departure from essential requirements of law resulted from trial court’s permitting plaintiff to continue deposition of insurer’s corporate representative — Although insurer argued that representative was a “senior management executive” and plaintiff was not entitled to take this “apex” deposition until she had exhausted other discovery and could demonstrate that the representative was uniquely able to provide relevant information that could not be obtained from other sources, the representative at issue was not an “apex” level executive, but an operational level vice present who reviewed all credit insurance claims in excess of $10,000 — Representative was ultimately responsible for denial of claim and, moreover, had already been deposed by plaintiff for one day without this objection being raised

31 Fla. L. Weekly D368b
Insurance — Credit life — Beneficiary’s action against insurer which denied coverage under credit life policy on ground that decedent was ineligible for coverage because of his medical history, alleging fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and first-party bad faith — Discovery — Order compelling discovery did not improperly compel insurer to disclose information that was protected by work product doctrine, but instead made clear that work product materials were not ordered to be produced and that if work product issue arose later, trial court would address the matter upon appropriate motion — Order did not improperly compel production of information about claim files, claims handling practices, and business policies before coverage had been established — Complaint included causes of action other than bad faith, and trial court properly found that documents sought were within scope of discovery as to those claims — Lack of relevancy alone is not sufficient basis for granting certiorari relief — Moreover, insurer’s corporate representative has already testified extensively at his deposition regarding the topics at issue without objection — No departure from essential requirements of law resulted from trial court’s permitting plaintiff to take deposition of insurer’s corporate representative — Although insurer argued that representative was a “senior management executive” and plaintiff was not entitled to take this “apex” deposition until she had exhausted other discovery and could demonstrate that the representative was uniquely able to provide relevant information that could not be obtained from other sources, the representative at issue was not an “apex” level executive, but an operational level vice present who reviewed all credit insurance claims in excess of $10,000 — Representative was ultimately responsible for denial of claim and, moreover, had already been deposed by plaintiff for one day without this objection being raised

31 Fla. L. Weekly S840b

Insurance — Underinsured motorist — Conflict of laws — Lex loci contractus — Residents of another state who execute an insurance contract in that state, and who reside in Florida for several months of the year, may not invoke Florida’s public policy exception to the rule of lex loci contractus to invalidate an exclusionary clause in the policy — Public policy exception to lex loci rule may only be invoked to protect permanent Florida residents — District court erroneously found that the public policy exception to the lex loci contractus rule is properly invoked when Florida bears a significant connection to the insurance coverage

31 Fla. L. Weekly D2440b

Insurance — Commercial general liability — Notice of claim — Error to grant summary judgment in favor of insurer with respect to late notice where, viewing evidence most favorably to insured and drawing every possible inference in insured’s favor, there was genuine issue of material fact concerning when insured knew of mold problems in construction project and whether insured failed to timely notify insurer

31 Fla. L. Weekly D719a

Insurance — Class actions — Standing — Plaintiff who had obtained ruling that she was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under Rental Supplementary Liability Insurance Excess Policy issued by defendant has standing to file class action complaint seeking declaratory judgment that plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals are entitled to uninsured motorist coverage and damages — To satisfy the requirement of standing, plaintiff must show that a case or controversy exists between plaintiff and defendant, and that such case or controversy continues from the commencement through the existence of the litigation — Plaintiff has standing because a final judgment has not been rendered on her claim for damages or defendant’s liability — Whether plaintiff is a proper class representative or whether there exists similarity of claims between the named plaintiff and the class members are questions addressed not by principles of standing, but, rather, by the application of the requirements for class action certification

31 Fla. L. Weekly S310a

Insurance — Cancellation of policy — Section 627.848, Florida Statutes (2002), contemplates a single date of cancellation for the insurance contract as a whole — The insurance contract cannot be cancelled as to different insureds at different times depending on when a statutorily required notice is given to that insured — Where policy provision required notice of any cancellation to mortgagee, policy was not effectively cancelled when insurer received notice of cancellation from premium finance company — Cancellation could not have been effective prior to expiration of period required for notice to mortgagee

31 Fla. L. Weekly D2495a
939 So. 2d 1113

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Discovery — Claims file — Attorney-client privilege applies in first-party bad faith action — Question certified: Does the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005), relating to discovery of work product in first-party bad faith actions brought pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes, also apply to attorney-client privileged communications in the same circumstances?

31 Fla. L. Weekly D169a

Insurance — Liability — Discovery — Attorney-client privilege — Waiver — Action against umbrella insurance carrier after plaintiffs entered into Coblentz agreement in which defendants entered into consent judgment and assigned to plaintiff any cause of action they had against umbrella insurance carrier in exchange for plaintiff’s covenant not to execute on defendants — Injured party wishing to recover under Coblentz agreement must bring action against insurer and prove coverage, wrongful refusal to defend, and that settlement was reasonable and made in good faith — There was no blanket waiver of attorney-client privilege on the question whether the Coblentz agreement was reasonable and in good faith — However, provision of settlement agreement stating that corporate defendant had been advised by prior corporate counsel and individual defendants had been advised by their personal counsel that “in their opinion, the case, if tried before a jury, would result in a verdict of liability” did waive attorney-client privilege as to the stated opinion of counsel that verdict of liability would result if the case were tried — Recitations elsewhere in settlement agreement that parties had consulted with counsel regarding underlying tort action and settlement agreements did not disclose the substance of the legal advice given and did not accomplish a waiver of attorney-client privilege