Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 76-44
| Decision Date | 27 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-44,76-44 |
| Citation | 335 So.2d 620 |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Robert SHUPACK, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Papy, Levy, Carruthers & Poole and Steven J. Cohen, Coral Gables, for petitioner.
Harold M. Braxton, Miami, for respondent.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
We have been presented with a petition for certiorari to review two orders of the circuit court in an action by the respondent, Robert Shupack, against his own insurance company. The first order denied the petitioner Allstate Insurance Company's motion to strike two counts of the plaintiff's complaint. The first count with which we are here concerned in count 2, which claims punitive damage upon the ground that Allstate Insurance Company showed bad faith in the non-payment of no-fault benefits. Count 3 claimed damages for libel because the petitioner had answered an interrogatory propounded by the respondent by referring to matters which indicated that the respondent was intoxicated at the time of the accident.
Petitioner's motion to strike these two counts was, in effect, a motion to dismiss the counts as having no legal basis in the law. We do not ordinarily review by certiorari an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint. See the rule in Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 188. We, therefore, decline at this time to review the denial of petitioner's motion to strike the count of the complaint claiming punitive damages for failure to pay the claim for no-fault benefits under the policy issued by the petitioner.
Count 3 makes a claim grounded in libel seeking damages for matters contained in an answer to an interrogatory. Such a claim is so clearly barred by the decided cases that we have decided it is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. We, therefore, grant certiorari and quash that portion of the court's order which denied the motion to strike the claim of damages for libel. See Taylor v. Alropa Corporation, 138 Fla. 137, 189 So. 230 (1939).
The second order on which petitioner seeks a review in an order requiring the production of the insurance adjustor's file, including all correspondence between the insurance company and its attorneys. Orders on discovery are properly reviewed upon petition for certiorari where the order is a clear departure from the essential requirements of law. See Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So.2d 541, 545 (194...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fidelity and Cas. Ins. Co. of New York v. Taylor
...unlike this case, the issue of whether the carrier provided coverage vel non remained unresolved. See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So.2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Maryland American Gen. Ins. Co. v. Blackmon, 639 S.W.2d 455 ...
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz
...benefits combined with bad faith until the insurer's obligation to provide coverage has been established); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So.2d 620, 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (same). However, when the underlying claim for benefits has been resolved, all files pertaining to the underlying di......
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage
...for review by certiorari. Gordons Jewelry Co. of Florida, Inc. v. Feldman, 351 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So.2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. Hill, 196 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); But see Radio Communications Corp. v. Oki Electronic......
-
Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avila, 3D17–465
...a trial court must not order an insurer to produce its claims files and other work product documents."); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So.2d 620, 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (issuing certiorari and quashing order requiring production of claims file in potential action for bad faith claims ha......