Case Name: PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Peter R. GENOVESE, M.D., Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-12-13
Citations: 943 So. 2d 321
Docket Number: No. 4D06-421
Parties: PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Peter R. GENOVESE, M.D., Respondent.
Judges: GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 943
Pages: 321–325

Head Matter:
PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Peter R. GENOVESE, M.D., Respondent.
No. 4D06-421.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 13, 2006.
John T. Kolinski and John E. Meagher of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Miami, for petitioner.
Bard D. Rockenbach of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Richard M. Benrubi of Liggio, Benrubi & Williams, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
Frederick T. Hawkes and Nancy C. Ciampa of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae Defense Research Institute, Inc.
Janis Brustares Keyser of Billing, Cochran, Heath, Lyles, Mauro & Anderson, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Amicus Curiae Florida Defense Lawyers Association.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Genovese brought a statutory first-party bad faith action against Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company, his own insurer, after Provident stopped monthly payments Genovese claimed from his disability income policy. Following commencement of the bad faith suit, Genovese requested production of Provident's entire litigation file, including all correspondence and communications made between the attorneys representing Provident and Provident's agents regarding Genovese's claims for benefits. The trial court issued an order compelling production of the documents. Provident then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, asking this court to quash the trial court order, arguing that Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla.2005), did not allow for the discovery of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege nor did it allow discovery of documents protected by a "core" work product privilege.
We deny the petition as to Provident's claim that some documents are protected by a "core" work product privilege. The Florida Supreme Court held in Ruiz that the work product privilege did not protect against discovery of the insurer's file in a statutory first-party bad faith claim. 899 So.2d at 1129-30. The Court did not make a distinction between "core" and "non-core" work product.
However, we grant the petition as to information covered by the attorney-client privilege. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 939 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (agreeing with XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Aircraft Holdings, LLC, 929 So.2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), rev. granted, 935 So.2d 1219 (Fla.2006), and finding that the attorney-client privilege does apply in statutory first-party bad faith actions). We quash the trial court's order compelling discovery of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and remand for further proceedings. Additionally, we again certify the same question certified in XL Specialty and Bennett as one of great public importance:
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?
GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
FARMER, J., concurs specially with opinion.