Certain London Market Insurers v. Associated Aviation Underwriters, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Certain London Market Insurers v. Associated Aviation Underwriters, Inc.

891 So. 2d 601, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 512, 2005 WL 124168

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 24, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-1482

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 891 So. 2d 601 (Certain London Market Insurers v. Associated Aviation Underwriters, Inc.) 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

Certain London Market Insurers v. Associated Aviation Underwriters, Inc., 891 So. 2d 601, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 512, 2005 WL 124168 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

891 So. 2d 601, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 512, 2005 WL 124168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/certain-london-market-insurers-v-associated-aviation-underwriters-inc-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack