Case Name: LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Harvey D. BENNETT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sandra L. Bennett, deceased, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-09-29
Citations: 883 So. 2d 373
Docket Number: No. 4D04-606
Parties: LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Harvey D. BENNETT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sandra L. Bennett, deceased, Respondent.
Judges: SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 883
Pages: 373–375

Head Matter:
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Harvey D. BENNETT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sandra L. Bennett, deceased, Respondent.
No. 4D04-606.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 29, 2004.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 2004.
Janis Brustares Keyser of Billing, Cochran, Heath, Lyles, Mauro & Anderson, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Michael B. Davis of Paxton & Smith, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Liberty Mutual seeks certiorari review of an order requiring production of part of its file, in this statutory bad faith action, arguing it is work product. The trial court adopted the special master's recommendation that Liberty Mutual did not begin to treat the claim as one for bad faith until it forwarded the file to a lawyer to defend the bad faith claim, citing Allstate Indemnity Company v. Ruiz, 780 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 796 So.2d 535 (Fla.2001). The court required the production of the file predating that event.
In Ruiz we relied on our earlier decision in Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 444 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), explaining:
In Cotton, we considered federal decisions as persuasive authority because Florida's rule of civil procedure pertaining to work product privilege is substantially similar to the federal rule. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). See also Carver v. Allstate Ins. Co., 94 F.R.D. 131 (S.D.Ga.1982). According to Carver, the key inquiry is whether the probability of litigation is "substantial and imminent." 94 F.R.D. at 134.
We recognize that our position conflicts with decisions from other districts finding that statements are privileged and protected as work product when they were taken at a time when it was foreseeable that litigation would arise. See, e.g., Prudential, 694 So.2d at 774; McRae's Inc. v. Moreland, 765 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We nevertheless adhere to our ruling in Cotton that work product privilege attaches to documents prepared in contemplation of litigation and not for "mere likelihood of litigation." Cotton, 444 So.2d at 596. Accordingly, we affirm the order insofar as it requires the items detailed above to be produced.
Ruiz, 780 So.2d at 241.
Liberty Mutual argues that the work product privilege should have attached five months earlier, when counsel for claimant informed Liberty Mutual that if it did not settle within the policy limits, a lawsuit would be filed which would include a claim for bad faith. Applying Ruiz, we conclude that the finding that bad faith litigation did not become substantial and imminent until Liberty Mutual forwarded its file to counsel to defend the bad faith claim is not a departure from the essential requirements of law. We accordingly deny the petition.
SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
KLEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.