Case Name: CERTAIN LONDON MARKET INSURERS ("CLMI"), Petitioners, v. ASSOCIATED AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., et al., Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-01-24
Citations: 891 So. 2d 601
Docket Number: No. 1D04-1482
Parties: CERTAIN LONDON MARKET INSURERS (“CLMI”), Petitioners, v. ASSOCIATED AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., et al., Respondents.
Judges: BENTON, LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 891
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
CERTAIN LONDON MARKET INSURERS (“CLMI”), Petitioners, v. ASSOCIATED AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., et al., Respondents.
No. 1D04-1482.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 24, 2005.
Donald Partington, Esq. and Jason W. Peterson, Esq. of Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse, Pensacola; Neal M. Glazer, Esq. and Jan H. Duffalo, Esq. of D’Amato & Lynch, New York, NY, for Petitioners.
J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esq. and Thomas F. Gonzalez, Esq. of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola; Stephen M. Goldman, Esq. of Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, P.C., McLean, Virginia for Associated Aviation Underwriters, Inc.
P. Michael Patterson, Esq. of Emmanuel, Sheppard and Condon, Pensacola; Mary L. Barrier, Esq. of Stinson, Morrison, Hecker, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Cessna Aircraft Company, for Respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We grant the petition for a writ of cer-tiorari and quash the trial court's order to the extent that the court expressly found that the opinions of attorney Neal Glazer and D'Amato & Lynch regarding the settlement value of the underlying case were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. See S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So.2d 1377, 1383 (Fla.1994) (noting that the attorney-client privilege applies to confidential communications made in the rendition of legal services to a client); see also Home Ins. Co. v. Advance Mach. Co., 443 So.2d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (holding that a party's simple allegation in a contribution action that a settlement was reasonable does not take a case out of the general rule that the mere bringing of an action cannot be said to have waived the attorney-client privilege).
GRANTED.
BENTON, LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.