Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 83-262
Citation | 444 So.2d 595 |
Decision Date | 08 February 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 83-262,83-262 |
Parties | COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. TURTLE REEF ASSOCIATES, INC. a Florida corporation, Respondent. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Gregory M. Keyser of Paxton, Crow, Bragg, & Austin, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Hubert R. Lindsey, West Palm Beach, for respondent.
By petition for writ of certiorari, Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company seeks review of a non-final order granting respondent Turtle Reef Associates, Inc.'s motion to compel production of the contents of an independent insurance investigator's file compiled during his investigation of Turtle Reef's claim. Cotton States contends the contents of the file are work product and therefore privileged.
The work product privilege attaches to statements and materials prepared by a party's investigator or insurer only if these were prepared in contemplation of litigation. See Alachua General Hospital, Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small, 148 So.2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Mere likelihood of litigation does not satisfy this qualification. Because the applicable rule, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2), closely resembles Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), we look to federal case law for guidance.
In United States v. El Paso Company, 682 F.2d 530, 542 (5th Cir.1982), the court of appeals drew attention to the advisory committee note to the federal rule, which states materials assembled in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to public requirements unrelated to litigation are excluded from work product. In Carver v. Allstate Insurance Company, 94 F.R.D. 131 (S.D.Ga.1982), it is stated that an insurance company's claims investigation in its early stages is conducted in the ordinary course of business; the object is to determine whether to honor the claim or resist it, and whether to seek subrogation against a third party. In Carver, reports produced early on by a claims representative were not privileged, whereas subsequent reports of a senior claims representative, assigned when it was established the extent of loss was great and when arson was suspected, were privileged because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Here Cotton States retained an independent claims investigator, Donald D. Webb, to investigate Turtle Reef's claim. The trial judge cannot recall whether, when, he heard...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co.
...the discovery order does not conform with a series of recent decisions from this court. See Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 444 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Selected Risks Insurance Company v. White, 447 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). See also A......
-
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, BA-290
...exists are not entitled to protection from discovery under the work product doctrine. See Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 444 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We hold that scientific or other technical documents or tangible things prepared in anticipation o......
-
Huet v. Tromp
... ... Investigation and Security Consulting, Inc. (Mulholland), and American Investigative Support ... on their knowledge of the case, relying on Cotton States Mutual ... Insurance Co. v. Turtle Reef ... Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla.1999) ... ...
-
Millard Mall Servs., Inc. v. Bolda
...780 So.2d 239, 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), quashed on other grounds, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla.2005) ; Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assocs., Inc., 444 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (documents are work product only if they were prepared “in contemplation of litigation,” and the “[m......
-
Work product and the attorney's selection process: spoon feeding the opposition or preserving the adversary system?
...from federal decisions which had touched on the issue was appropriate. See also Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tuttle Reef Assoc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla 4th D.C.A. 1984), looking to federal case law for (9) Smith v. Florida Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1994); s......