Geico General Insurance Company v. Thomas A. Moultrop and Patricia Guy Moultrop

148 So. 3d 1284, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17237, 2014 WL 5343492

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 22, 2014
• Docket: 4D14-1844
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

GEICO General Insurance Company petitions for a writ of certiorari to review an order that allows discovery of attorney-client privileged communication in a bad faith action.

Following an in camera inspection, a special master determined that a number of documents from the insurer’s attorney’s litigation file in the underlying coverage case were privileged but discoverable in this bad faith action. The special master accepted respondents’ argument that attorney-client information from the underlying suit would be discoverable unless it pertained to bad faith aspects of the case.

We agree with petitioner that the order is contrary to Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., 74 So.3d 1064 (Fla.2011), and departs from the essential requirements of the law. Availability of the attorney-client privilege does not depend on whether this is a bad faith case or whether the information related to legal advice about bad faith. “[W]hen an insured party brings a bad faith claim against its insurer, the insured may not discover those privileged communications that occurred between the insurer and its counsel during the underlying action.” Id. at 1068. Absent an exception, such as when the insurer places counsel’s advice at issue, attorney-client privileged information from the underlying suit is not discoverable in a bad faith case. Id. at 1068-69.

Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the portion of the order that requires production of attorney-client privileged material on the grounds that the privileged information did not pertain to the bad faith aspects of this case.

GROSS, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.