Federated National Insurance Co. v. Fortin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Federated National Insurance Co. v. Fortin

121 So. 3d 606, 2013 WL 4081013, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12650

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 2013

DocketNo. 4D13-132

StatusPublished

This text of 121 So. 3d 606 (Federated National Insurance Co. v. Fortin) 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

Federated National Insurance Co. v. Fortin, 121 So. 3d 606, 2013 WL 4081013, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12650 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Federated National Insurance Company seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order denying its motion for protective order to prevent the production of Federated’s entire claims file. Respondent sought the claims file in its action for declaratory judgment, to determine Federated’s duty to defend in an action filed against Federated’s insured, T & M Lawn Care, Inc., as well as damages for that failure to defend the prior suit. The prior suit resulted in a [607]*607substantial judgment against T & M and in favor of respondent. Coverage under the policy is an issue in dispute in the declaratory judgment action. We grant the writ on the authority of Superior Insurance Co. v. Holden, 642 So.2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (an order compelling discovery of claims file was premature where coverage is still in dispute, as the claims file constitutes work product; noting that a claimant may request an in camera inspection to confirm that the documents meet the criteria of work product or attorney/client privilege).

WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Federated National Insurance Company seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order denying its motion for protective order to prevent the production of Federated’s entire claims file. Respondent sought the claims file in its action for declaratory judgment, to determine Federated’s duty to defend in an action filed against Federated’s insured, T & M Lawn Care, Inc., as well as damages for that failure to defend the prior suit. The prior suit resulted in a [607]*607substantial judgment against T & M and in favor of respondent. Coverage under the policy is an issue in dispute in the declaratory judgment action. We grant the writ on the authority of Superior Insurance Co. v. Holden, 642 So.2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (an order compelling discovery of claims file was premature where coverage is still in dispute, as the claims file constitutes work product; noting that a claimant may request an in camera inspection to confirm that the documents meet the criteria of work product or attorney/client privilege).

WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 3d 606, 2013 WL 4081013, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federated-national-insurance-co-v-fortin-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack