Aetna Insurance Co. v. Koganovsky

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aetna Insurance Co. v. Koganovsky

661 So. 2d 418, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10926, 1995 WL 610381

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 1995

DocketNo. 95-3083

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 661 So. 2d 418 (Aetna Insurance Co. v. Koganovsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Insurance Co. v. Koganovsky, 661 So. 2d 418, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10926, 1995 WL 610381 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner raises a number of grounds on which to grant a petition for certiorari, two of which require that we grant the relief requested, in part. The trial court failed to conduct an in camera hearing to determine if the materials being sought were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, we quash its order and remand for in camera review to determine which documents are protected by the privilege. Old Stone Bank v. Farris, 647 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 659 So.2d 271 (Fla.1995).

Similarly, because of the absence of any hearing upon the question of work product privilege we further remand to determine same; and if privileged, to make a determination of need and inability to obtain substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA Inc., 403 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also Healthtrust, Inc. v. Saunders, 651 So.2d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Boca Raton Hotel & Club v. Dunn, 563 So.2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assoc., Inc., 444 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

As to the balance of petitioner’s arguments, we deny relief.

GUNTHER, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner raises a number of grounds on which to grant a petition for certiorari, two of which require that we grant the relief requested, in part. The trial court failed to conduct an in camera hearing to determine if the materials being sought were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, we quash its order and remand for in camera review to determine which documents are protected by the privilege. Old Stone Bank v. Farris, 647 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 659 So.2d 271 (Fla.1995).

Similarly, because of the absence of any hearing upon the question of work product privilege we further remand to determine same; and if privileged, to make a determination of need and inability to obtain substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA Inc., 403 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also Healthtrust, Inc. v. Saunders, 651 So.2d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Boca Raton Hotel & Club v. Dunn, 563 So.2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assoc., Inc., 444 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

As to the balance of petitioner’s arguments, we deny relief.

GUNTHER, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 So. 2d 418, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10926, 1995 WL 610381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-insurance-co-v-koganovsky-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack