STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

HERMES HERRERA

RA 1).it“ gush *5Am ‘TS QC'3- ‘wl This cause having been brought to this Court by appeal, and after due consideration the court having issued its opinion; YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings be had in said cause in accordance with the opinion of this COURT attached hereto and incorporated as part of this order, and with the rules of procedure and laws ofthe STATE OF FLORIDA. Lower Tribunal Case Number(s): 12-000255-SP 25 WITNESS the Honorable Abby Cynamon, Administ Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of February, 2015. ‘E.-‘~ *3‘ *:J“fi'ifi$ kl“ .- vb-V‘£35’ <5ia\R\‘= aw» / rative Judge oftheAppellate Division ofthe Circuit Florida and the seal of the said Circuit Court at Miami, this 4*“ day of A True Copy Atte ' r» ‘- *1 . I. w $;‘LY»i2.~./“\‘ M‘ ~,;'j' I ‘ 1"‘ ' Ri ' =~* V ., . ourtgggl; 4‘ U :5 F , By: /55%,» , Sip , (;jOP%E8F~ » C ED W couusi-L0! FY emnfl» Mandate _/.,..'. ,:...¢...-..J;--»»--4"" rev. IO/22/2008 A _)@ “D\Q V§4m \\I Q ~,,“~_ fig [*2] S -, k I .1

NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF

TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,

FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

CASE NO ' 12 ..

-435AP L.T. CASE NO. 12-255 SP 25

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. name 3- “W ‘SW1 we V15 ‘ivfi F%<~“ ufifg

HERMES HERRERA

Respondent. :'\ “<3 R ifig ...» Opinion filed: On certiorari review of the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Nuria S Judge. Nancy W “E; so 63% modsieqfll ‘S “I“°A°3 -we ,4 33% EU

4.

gr" -M» aenz, . Gregoire of Kir hb '

D. Hellm

' ' s aum, Blmbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC and Matthew an for Petitioner. George A. David, for Respondent. Before SIGLER, EIG, and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

State Farm seeks certiorari review of a non-final order compelling it to produce from its claims file adjuster notes that were prepared before receipt of plaintiffs pre-suit demand letter. The trial court conducted an in camera inspection and concluded that the adjuster’s notes were not privileged work product as they were made in the ordinary course of adjusting the claim and not in anticipation of litigation. We hold that the trial court departed from the essential [*3] requirements of law by requiring the insurer to produce claims file documents in this first-party, non-bad-faith, breach of PIP contract dispute, before the issues of coverage, liability and damages have been decided. In Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379, 380 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of contract, a trial court departs from essential requirements of law by compelling disclosure of notes in the insurer’s claim file when issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved. See also State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)(Florida law “prohibits insureds from obtaining discovery into an insurer’s claims files and claims handling material until contract/coverage litigation has concluded.”); State Farm Fire & Ins. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA l995)(holding “State Farm’s claims files, manuals, guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant to the first party dispute involved in this case”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Perez, Case No. 13-408 AP (Fla. llth Cir. Ct. Oct. 9, 2014)(notes in claims file are prohibited from disclosure); State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 4930 (Fla. llth Cir. Ct. Mar. 7, 2014) (same); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. S. Miami Health Ctr., 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 27a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Oct. 16, 20l3)(“Twice recently the Third District Court of Appeal has granted petitions for writs of certiorari and applied Florida law which prohibits discovery of claims file dociunents and claims handling materials where a breach of contract or coverage issue is still pending and the case does not involve a bad faith claim”); Marshalls of MA, Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So. 2d 444, 446-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)(incident report is protected by work product doctrine where document was prepared in response to some event which foreseeably could be made basis of claim in future). [*4] Based upon these rulings, we quash the order below that compelled the production of the F VICTORIA S. Z r—4 gaims file ad'uster’s tcs. SPENCER EE it "11EC‘W 5-‘ L"

REE

\ /3/6