UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATON A/K/A USAA, PETITIONER,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BUCKSTEIN, 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.
The court held that the trial court's order compelling production of documents from USAA's claim file was improper due to uncertainty regarding privilege applicability.
[1] Documents protected by the attorney-client privilege are not discoverable, even if work product objections are raised.
[2] A trial court must conduct an in camera inspection to determine the applicability of the work product and attorney-client privileges to disputed documents.
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 intelligenceUSAA sought certiorari review of a circuit court order requiring production of documents from its claim file, which USAA claimed were protected by att…
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 In Camera Inspection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
United Services Automobile Association (USAA) seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order requiring production of documents in USAA’s claim file. USAA maintains the documents 'are protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.
Christopher Buckstein, the respondent and plaintiff below, relies on Allstate Indemnity Company v. Ruiz, 780 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 796 So. 2d 535 (Fla.2001), and maintains the requested documents are not protected by the work product privilege because they were prepared before the amount of coverage was contested. According to Buckstein, litigation regarding coverage was not foreseeable or anticipated until a jury returned a verdict in his favor and USAA. asserted that the amount of available coverage under the policy was more limited than Buck-stein originally believed. Regarding the attorney-client privilege, Buckstein indicated he was seeking only documents that the privilege log shows have been disclosed to third parties.
The trial court sustained USAA’s objections to producing the entire claim file, but allowed production of any and all documents in the claim file that relate to or refer to insurance coverage available to Buckstein or his father up to March 7, 2003, the date of the jury verdict.
It is not clear from the record whether either privilege applies in this case. Notwithstanding the work product objections, if any of the documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege, they are not discoverable. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Roth, 859 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). There is also some confusion between the parties regarding which documents Buck-stein is seeking from the privilege log.
Accordingly, the circuit court’s order is quashed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court should determine which documents are really in dispute and conduct an in camera inspection to determine whether any of these documents are protected by either the work product or attorney-client privilege.
WARNER, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 939 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…e in Ruiz, does apply. XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Aircraft Holdings, LLC, 929 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that Ruiz did not do away with the attorney-client privilege in first-party bad faith cases); United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Buckstein, 891 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (upholding the attorney-client privilege in a first-party bad faith case before the supreme court decided Ruiz). We certify the same question certified by the court in XL Specialty, as one of great public importance: DOES THE…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 780 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Roth, 859 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)