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: 2006-10-04
Citations: 939 So. 2d 1113
Docket Number: No. 4D06-1082
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: WARNER, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 939
Pages: 1113–1116

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. 4D06-1082.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 4, 2006.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 2006.
Gregory M. Keyser and Donna M. Krus-be 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:
KLEIN, J.
Respondent Bennett brought this suit against Liberty Mutual, his own insurer, as a result of an accident in which his wife's death was caused by an uninsured tortfeasor. After a jury verdict which was greater than the policy limits on the UM claim, Bennett filed this first-party bad faith action under section 624.155, Florida Statutes (1997). Bennett then obtained an order from the trial court requiring Liberty Mutual to produce its entire claims file, overruling objections based on work product and attorney-client privilege. We grant the petition as to information covered by the attorney-client privilege and certify the question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance.
In Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla.2005), the Florida Supreme Court held that the work product privilege did not protect from discovery the insurer's file in a statutory first-party bad faith claim, and the trial court accordingly correctly applied Ruiz in holding the work product privilege inapplicable. We agree with Liberty Mutual, however, that the attorney-client privilege, which was not at issue in Ruiz, does apply. XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Aircraft Holdings, LLC, 929 So.2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that Ruiz did not do away with the attorney-client privilege in first-party bad faith cases); United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Buckstein, 891 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (upholding the attorney-client privilege in a first-party bad faith case before the supreme court decided Ruiz).
We certify the same question certified by the court in XL Specialty, as one of great public importance:
DOES THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO. V. RUIZ, 899 S0.2D 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?
WARNER, J., concurs.