Court Opinion

ID: 9901679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 14:02:09.540428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:38.091389
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                         No. 1D2023-0970
                  _____________________________

HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY
& CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC.,

    Petitioner,

    v.

THOMAS S. THOMPSON and LISA
D. THOMPSON,

    Respondents.
               _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

                       November 22, 2023

PER CURIAM.

     The petitioning insurer argues that its claims and
underwriting files are categorically protected against discovery in
the insured homeowners’ first-party breach of contract lawsuit. As
to our jurisdiction, we agree that certiorari review is appropriate
for discovery orders requiring production of allegedly privileged
documents. See People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Foster, 333 So. 3d 773, 774
(Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“[W]e recognize the long history of courts
accepting jurisdiction on insurance-discovery disputes like this
one.”). However, we deny the petition on its merits.
     Hurricane Sally damaged the insureds’ Pensacola home in
September of 2020. The insureds obtained estimates totaling over
$285,000 to repair wind damage, which the policy covered. In
contrast, the insurer initially determined the net payable loss was
only $2,058, asserting that the damage was mostly ordinary wear
and tear, improper construction, or the result of other causes the
policy did not cover.

     The insureds filed suit for breach of the insurance contract,
and sought discovery of the insurer’s field adjuster’s notes,
evaluations, inspections, reports, and photos kept in the ordinary
course of business; and any documents or evidence supporting the
insurer’s denial of the claim or its defenses or affirmative defenses.
The insurer asserted a categorical work-product privilege in its
claims and underwriting files. Ultimately the trial court ordered
the insurer to file disputed documents under seal, with a privilege
log.

     The trial court reviewed the documents in camera, and
overruled in part the insurer’s objections to producing the
requested discovery. The court ordered the insurer to produce
some of the disputed documents, including the field adjuster’s logs
and photos of the initial home inspection and some documents
relating to the insurer’s early “basic evaluation” of the claim. The
court upheld the insurer’s work-product objections as to other
documents and particularly those generated later in the process.

      In Foster, we recently rejected the same categorical-privilege
argument that the insurer asserts here. Foster also involved a
first-party breach of contract action, and the insurer argued that
an “order allowing discovery of its underwriting manual(s) is
categorically prohibited in breach of contract cases, like this one,
until and unless bad faith litigation commences.” Foster, 333 So.
3d at 775. We called that “sweeping characterization” incorrect. Id.
(citing Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Venable, 324 So. 3d 999 (Fla.
1st DCA 2021); and then Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Simmons,
298 So. 3d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)). Simply put, “there is
no categorical legal rule prohibiting discovery of underwriting
manuals in breach of contract cases, especially if they are
relevant.” Id.

                                  2
     Here, the insurer’s assertion of privilege was overly broad,
just as was the assertion in Foster. Documents in claims and
underwriting files are not automatically work product. The insurer
did not argue or prove that the requested documents were
prepared in anticipation of litigation; and to the contrary, the
documents ordered produced were created just days after the
hurricane and before any coverage determination had occurred.
We find no departure from the essential requirements of law.

     We also reject the insurer’s broad confidentiality, proprietary,
and trade secret objections raised in its privilege log. See
Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 800 So. 2d 689, 690–91 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2001) (explaining that insurer’s “blanket statement in its
privilege log is insufficient to establish the work-product
privilege”).

    DENIED on the merits.

ROBERTS, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

Curt Allen, Bryan D. Hull, and Lauren B. Yevich of Bush Ross,
P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner.

Brian D. Hancock of Taylor, Warren, Weidner & Hancock, P.A.,
Pensacola, Respondents.

                                 3