Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz
899 So. 2d 1121, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 612, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 219 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a first-party bad faith action, materials in the insurer's underlying claim and litigation file, created up to and including the date of resolution of the underlying coverage dispute, are discoverable and not shielded by the work product privilege.
Facts:
- Joaquin and Paulina Ruiz held an Allstate Indemnity insurance policy covering their Chevrolet Blazer.
- Paulina Ruiz instructed Allstate agent Paul Cobb to add a newly purchased Oldsmobile Cutlass to the policy.
- When adding the new vehicle, agent Cobb erroneously deleted the Blazer from the policy.
- The Ruizes were not notified that the Blazer was no longer a covered vehicle.
- Subsequently, Joaquin Ruiz was involved in an automobile accident while driving the Blazer.
- The Ruizes submitted a claim for collision coverage for the damage to the Blazer.
- Allstate Indemnity initially denied the claim, asserting that the Blazer was not covered under the policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Joaquin and Paulina Ruiz filed suit in a Florida trial court against Allstate Indemnity and Allstate Insurance for bad faith, and against agent Paul Cobb for negligence.
- During the bad faith litigation, the Ruizes moved to compel the production of Allstate's claim and investigative files.
- The trial court, after an in-camera review, granted the motion and ordered Allstate to produce the documents.
- Allstate, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the Fourth District Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court) to quash the trial court's discovery order.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the writ in part, affirming production of some documents but reversing the trial court's order for other documents it deemed protected as work product prepared in anticipation of litigation.
- Allstate then petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court, for review of the district court's decision, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the work product privilege protect an insurer's underlying claim and litigation file from discovery in a statutory first-party bad faith action brought by its insured?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No. The work product privilege does not protect an insurer's underlying claim file from discovery in a statutory first-party bad faith action because the materials reflecting how the insurer handled the claim are central to proving or disproving bad faith. The Court recedes from its prior decision in Kujawa v. Manhattan National Life Insurance Co., which created an artificial distinction between discovery rules for first-party and third-party bad faith actions. The Legislature's enactment of section 624.155 imposed a duty of good faith and fair dealing on insurers in first-party claims, making the underlying claim file the best and often only source of direct evidence regarding the insurer's conduct. There is no longer a logical or legal basis to apply different discovery rules to these substantively identical causes of action, as doing so would thwart the legislative intent of the bad faith statute.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Wells, J.
No. While concurring with the majority's result that the documents should be produced, the dissent disagrees with the reasoning and the decision to recede from Kujawa. The dissent argues that a distinction between first-party and third-party actions remains because the insured and insurer are in an adversarial relationship during the underlying policy dispute. A better rule would be to hold that work product created for the underlying policy lawsuit is protected until that lawsuit is concluded. Once the underlying claim is resolved, the entire file should become discoverable over a work product objection. Because the underlying claim in this case was completed, the documents are discoverable.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally alters discovery in Florida first-party insurance bad faith litigation by eliminating the distinction between first-party and third-party claims. By receding from Kujawa, the court created a unified standard that significantly strengthens an insured's ability to prosecute a bad faith action by granting access to the insurer's internal claim-handling documents. This ruling prevents insurers from broadly shielding crucial evidence of their conduct under the work product doctrine, clarifying that the handling of the underlying claim is the central issue and its documentation is therefore discoverable.
