Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): file were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The trial court should consider the nature of the requested documents, the reason the documents were prepared, the relationship between the preparer of the document and the party seeking its protection from discovery, the relationship between the litigating parties, and any other facts relevant to the issue. See Haynes, 597 So.2d at 619. The discoverability of such documents may differ depending on the circumstances of the case. Documents obtained by an insurer where its own insured is the claimant against it (first-party claim) may well be treated differently from documents obtained by an insurer from its insured where the potential claimant is a third party. See Beck v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 701 P.2d 795, 798 n. 2, 799-800 (Utah 1985) (<HOLDING>); accord Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the governments cooperation with a thirdparty is not sufficient to establish a thirdparty beneficiary relationship (B) holding that a thirdparty providers claim against insurer for promissory estoppel was not preempted by erisa because the thirdparty provider was not bound by the terms of the erisa plan (C) recognizing fundamental distinction between firstparty and thirdparty situations and imposing fiduciary duty upon insurer to protect its insureds interest in thirdparty situations (D) recognizing common law cause of action as thirdparty beneficiary (E) holding that a plaintiff who had asserted no claim against a thirdparty defendant lacked standing to complain of the courts action with regard to the thirdparty defendant
Output (English): holding that a thirdparty providers claim against insurer for promissory estoppel was not preempted by erisa because the thirdparty provider was not bound by the terms of the erisa plan