BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER, APPELLEE
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.
The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court's rulings on attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. The court found that certain documents were not privileged, while others were, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The court held that no attorney-client privilege existed for communications involving attorney Blanton as a conduit for the appellant. It affirmed that no work-product doctrine or private investigator privilege was established for documents created by Blanton, his investigator, the appellant, and its general counsel. However, it reversed the trial court's finding that attorney-client privilege attached to communications with George K. Delano, the appellant's secretary and general counsel, as the appellant failed to present evidence that the investigation was undertaken in his professional capacity or in anticipation of litigation.
“no attorney-client relation privilege exists as to the documents and communications between the appellant, attorney Edwin Blanton, and the private investigator hired by Blanton to investigate an employee of the Department of Insurance, because no attorney-client relationship existed between appellant and Blan-ton with respect to this investigation, rather, Blanton was a “conduit” for the appellant.”
Establishes the lack of attorney-client privilege when an attorney acts as a conduit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Bankers Insurance Company, sought to protect documents and communications related to an investigation of an employee of the Department …
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 Work Product Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Chief Judge.
We AFFIRM the trial court’s finding that no attorney-client relation privilege exists as to the documents and communications between the appellant, attorney Edwin Blanton, and the private investigator hired by Blanton to investigate an employee of the Department of Insurance, because no attorney-client relationship existed between appellant and Blan-ton with respect to this investigation, rather, Blanton was a “conduit” for the appellant. We AFFIRM the trial court’s finding that no work-product doctrine or private investigator privilege was established for the documents created by Blan-ton, his investigator, the appellant, and the appellant’s general counsel. We also AFFIRM the trial court’s finding that an attorney-client relationship exists between the appellant and attorney Cheryl Gentry, so that the work-product privilege attaches to the letter written to Gentry by a polygraph examiner.
However, we' REVERSE the trial court’s finding that an attorney-client priv ilege attaches to communications between the appellant and George K. Delano with respect to the investigation of the Department’s employee.
The evidence demonstrates that Delano serves as the appellant’s secretary and general counsel, but the appellant presented only argument, and no evidence, that he undertook the investigation of the Department’s employee in his professional capacity as general counsel, or that he undertook the investigation in anticipation of litigation in which the appellant would be a party. We also REVERSE the trial court’s finding that the letter written by Delano to Blanton on July 10, 1996, which refers to Gentry’s representation of the appellant, is privileged.
The case is REMANDED to the trial court for entry of a final order which is in accordance with this opinion, and which releases to the Department everything currently under seal, with the exception of the letter 'to Gentry from the polygraph examiner. LAWRENCE and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
1550 Brickell Assocs. v. Q.B.E. Ins., 597 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2009)…Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 701 (S.D.Fla.2007); St. Joe Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3391208 at *7 (Nov. 22, 2006). 3 . 138 F.R.D. 655 (S.D.Ind.1991). 4 . Id. at 661. 5 . Id. at 663. 6 . 755 So.2d 729 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000). 7 . 632 So.2d 1377 (Fla.1994). 8 . Bankers Insurance Co., 755 So.2d at 729. 9 . [DE 141 p. 7 n. 5] 10 . Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 632 So.2d at 1383. 11 . This quote was…