Case Name: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance corporation, Petitioner, v. Lillian HABELOW, individually and as guardian on behalf of Benjamin Habelow, Incompetent, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-11-18
Citations: 405 So. 2d 1361
Docket Number: No. 81-874
Parties: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance corporation, Petitioner, v. Lillian HABELOW, individually and as guardian on behalf of Benjamin Habelow, Incompetent, Respondent.
Judges: FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 405
Pages: 1361–1363

Head Matter:
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance corporation, Petitioner, v. Lillian HABELOW, individually and as guardian on behalf of Benjamin Habelow, Incompetent, Respondent.
No. 81-874.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 18, 1981.
Ronald L. Harrop of Gurney, Gurney, & Handley, P. A., Orlando, for petitioner.
William G. Osborne of Robertson, Williams, Duane, Lewis & Ranson, P. A., Orlando, for respondent.

Opinion:
COBB, Judge.
The petitioner, Travelers, seeks common-law certiorari to the Orange County Circuit Court, which rendered an order on July 6, 1981, directing the petitioner to produce for inspection by the claimant below all matters contained in its workmen's compensation claim file, including attorney-client communications. Travelers asks that this discovery order be quashed insofar as it encompasses such communications, relying on Skorman v. Hovnanian of Fla., Inc., 382 So.2d 1876 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and Roberts v. Jardine, 366 So.2d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). See also § 90.502, Fla. Stat. (1979).
The trial court's order apparently was predicated on Stone v. Travelers Insurance Company, 326 So.2d 241 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), a "bad faith" case. This reliance was misplaced because in defending a personal injury action on behalf of its insured, as in Stone, the attorney for the carrier is also the attorney for the insured and a fiduciary relationship exists which is not present in the instant situation. Cf. Baxter v. Royal Indemnity Co., 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), cert. discharged, 317 So.2d 725 (Fla. 1975). Here, the petitioner and the respondent are in an adversarial contract dispute.
The respondent also asserts that the attorney-client privilege has been waived by the petitioner. This argument was not presented to the trial court and was not the basis for that court's ruling. Moreover, the record before us does not support this argument.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and herewith quash the discovery order entered by the trial court on July 6,1981, insofar as it encompasses attorney-client communications. See West Volusia Hosp. Authority v. Williams, 308 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., concurs.
DAUKSCH, C. J., dissents with opinion.