STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JUDY PETERS, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
State Farm sought certiorari review of a circuit court order compelling discovery of its prejudgment and postjudgment files in a bad faith insurance claim. The court denied the petition regarding the prejudgment file but granted it regarding the postjudgment file, holding that prejudgment files are protected from discovery in bad faith actions.
The court denied certiorari review regarding the prejudgment file, holding that such files are protected from discovery in bad faith actions and that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law. The court granted certiorari in part, agreeing that the trial court erred in ordering production of the postjudgment file.
[1] Certiorari is not available to review an interlocutory order denying discovery because the harm from such orders can be rectified on appeal.
[2] To be reviewable by petition for certiorari, a nonfinal order must depart from the essential requirements of law and cause material injury to the petitioner, leaving no a…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We deny the petition insofar as it concerns documents, investigative files or claims manuals prepared or generated by State Farm relating to the initial claim up until the judgment (the prejudgment file).”
Establishes that prejudgment files are protected from discovery in bad faith insurance claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm was defending against a bad faith claim by Peters, who sought recovery of an excess verdict awarded against State Farm's insured. The trial…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari of the circuit court’s order that denied State Farm’s motion for a protective order and compelled the discovery of materials by the respondent, Peters, that State Farm claims are privileged.
The underlying case is a bad faith claim against State Farm seeking recovery of an excess verdict that Peters was awarded against State Farm’s insured. The discovery materials at issue here are State Farm’s prejudgment file and State Farm’s postjudgment file. State Farm contends that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering the production of its files after denying discovery of Peter’s prejudgment file.
We deny the petition insofar as it concerns documents, investigative files or claims manuals prepared or generated by State Farm relating to the initial claim up until the judgment (the prejudgment file). See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Stone v. Travelers Ins. Co., 326 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). State Farm will believe they are the victims of inconsistent rulings because the trial court denied them production of the Peter’s prejudgment file and this court denied the petition for writ of certiorari which attacked that ruling. Although the result in the trial court may have the appearance of inconsistency, there is no inconsistency so far as this court’s rulings concerning questions of discovery.
Ordinarily, certiorari is not available to review an interlocutory order denying discovery because the harm from such orders can be rectified on appeal. Esman v. Board of Regents of Florida, 425 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). As stated in Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987), common-law certiorari is an extraordinary remedy which should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of nonfinal orders.
In order to be reviewable by petition for certiorari, a nonfinal order must depart from the essential requirements of law, and thus cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. This court, in denying the prior petition for writ of certiorari, clearly held that the trial court’s denying discovery of Peter’s prejudgment file did not meet this test. It is equally clear that the denial of the prior petition for writ of certiorari is without prejudice to claim error on appeal.
Finally, the respondent concedes that the trial judge erred in ordering production of State Farm’s post judgment file, and so to that extent only, the petition is granted.
Petition granted in part and remanded in part.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Lynn R. Fassy, M.D., & Pain Med. Assocs., P.A. v. Crowley, 884 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…nonfinal orders under rule 9.030(b)(2)(A) is “an extraordinary remedy which should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of nonfinal orders.” State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citing Martin-Johnson, Inc., 509 So. 2d 1097). “[I]t is extremely rare that erroneous interlocutory rulings can be corrected by resort to common law certiorari. It is anticipated that since the most urgent interlocutory orde…1 / 3
-
Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem'l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…medy on appeal.” Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987). Certiorari is rarely available to review orders denying discovery because in most cases the harm can be corrected on appeal. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also Power Plant Entm’t, LLC v. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Dev. Co., 958 So. 2d 565, 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[F]ew orders denying discovery will involve information so relevant and crucial to the position of the par…
-
Nucci v. Kathryn "Kate" Nucci, 987 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…is warranted when there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing material harm that cannot be remedied on appeal. See, e.g., Reynolds v. State, 963 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). A failure to apply the correct standard for deciding a particular issue is a departure from the essential requirements of law. Dusseau v. Metro. Dade County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 794 So. 2d 1270, 1275 (Fla.2001). Here, the circu…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Spike von Zamft v. Heller, 425 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Brainard Stone and Beulah Stone v. Travelers Ins. Co., 326 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)