The Doctors Co. v. Thomas

District Court of Appeal of Florida

The Doctors Co. v. Thomas

189 So. 3d 196, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1571, 2016 WL 455796

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 2016

Docket2D15-3052

StatusPublished

This text of 189 So. 3d 196 (The Doctors Co. v. Thomas) 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

The Doctors Co. v. Thomas, 189 So. 3d 196, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1571, 2016 WL 455796 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

CRENSHAW, Judge.

The Doctors Company petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order that denies its motion for protective order and compels the production of The Doctors Company’s claims file and other investigative documents prior to any insurance coverage determination. Becausé the trial court’s order directs The Doctors Company to turn over protected materials before any coverage determination has been made, we grant the petition and quash the order.

This now consolidated lawsuit originated as a declaratory judgment action wherein The Doctors Company sought a declaration concerning its obligations under an insurance policy issued to an insured after the insured entered into an unauthorized settlement with a tort claimant. James Randall Thomas, the personal representative of the estate of the original tort claimant, subsequently filed an action asserting various claims against The Doctors Company including claims for both statutory and common-law bad faith. After the actions were consolidated, Thomas sought discovery of information related to The Doctors Company’s claims materials while the declaratory action remained pending.

We agree with The Doctors Company that the order compelling disclosure of its claims file and other related materials pri- or to any coverage determination departs from the essential requirements of the law. See e.g., Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Rajan, 93 So.3d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“[A]n order compelling production of an insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is unresolved has been held to constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law for which certiorari relief is appropriate.”); Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So.2d 779, 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Such premature disclosure results in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal. See e.g., Old Republic Nat’l. Title Ins. Co. v. HomeAmerican Credit, Inc., 844 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order under review.

Petition granted; order quashed.

KELLY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

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

CRENSHAW, Judge.

The Doctors Company petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order that denies its motion for protective order and compels the production of The Doctors Company’s claims file and other investigative documents prior to any insurance coverage determination. Becausé the trial court’s order directs The Doctors Company to turn over protected materials before any coverage determination has been made, we grant the petition and quash the order.

This now consolidated lawsuit originated as a declaratory judgment action wherein The Doctors Company sought a declaration concerning its obligations under an insurance policy issued to an insured after the insured entered into an unauthorized settlement with a tort claimant. James Randall Thomas, the personal representative of the estate of the original tort claimant, subsequently filed an action asserting various claims against The Doctors Company including claims for both statutory and common-law bad faith. After the actions were consolidated, Thomas sought discovery of information related to The Doctors Company’s claims materials while the declaratory action remained pending.

We agree with The Doctors Company that the order compelling disclosure of its claims file and other related materials pri- or to any coverage determination departs from the essential requirements of the law. See e.g., Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Rajan, 93 So.3d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“[A]n order compelling production of an insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is unresolved has been held to constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law for which certiorari relief is appropriate.”); Balboa Ins. Co. v. Vanscooter, 526 So.2d 779, 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Such premature disclosure results in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal. See e.g., Old Republic Nat’l. Title Ins. Co. v. HomeAmerican Credit, Inc., 844 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order under review.

Petition granted; order quashed.

KELLY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 So. 3d 196, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1571, 2016 WL 455796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-doctors-co-v-thomas-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack