Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Raimundo
| Citation | 124 So.3d 379 |
| Decision Date | 23 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D13–1758.,3D13–1758. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CASTLE KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Raimundo and Eugenia BENITEZ, Respondents. |
CASTLE KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
Raimundo and Eugenia BENITEZ, Respondents.
No. 3D13–1758.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
Oct. 23, 2013.
[124 So.3d 380]
Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP, and Miranda Lundeen Soto and Michael J. Dono, Miami, for petitioner.
Alonso & Perez, LLP, Coral Gables, and M. Katherine Heiserman, for respondents.
Before ROTHENBERG, FERNANDEZ, and LOGUE, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
Castle Key Insurance Company filed this petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order dated June 10, 2013, which granted a motion to compel better answers to certain interrogatories filed by Raimundo and Eugenia Benitez (“the insureds”). Castle Key asserts that the trial court order departs from the essential requirements of law by requiring the production of its claims file within the context of a breach of contract action by the insureds, prior to the resolution of whether coverage exists. We agree.
Under established Florida law, “discovery which concerns only potential issues of bad faith or other purported improprieties in defending [a] claim are wholly impermissible unless and until it is determined that the policy indeed provides coverage.” Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So.3d 276, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So.3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[W]here the issue of coverage is still unresolved at the time of the insurer's objection to the request for discovery of its claim file, the trial court departs from the essential requirements of law in overruling the insurer's objection.”). In considering objections to discovery requests for claims file materials, the “determinative issue” is “what type of action” the insured has brought. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So.3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Where, as here, the insured
is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of contract[,][a] trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law in compelling disclosure of the contents of an insurer's claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved.
Id. (citation, internal quotation, and alteration omitted).
Because the trial court order at issue directed the production of Castle Key's “claims file” when the issue of coverage is still in dispute, the order departs from the essential requirements of law.1
Having determined that Castle Key's petition is well-taken, we grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avila, 3D17–465
...file" in the underlying coverage dispute. Because we are bound by our existing precedent, including Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So.3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), we grant the petition and quash the order under review. FACTS The underlying dispute arises out of the Avilas' insurance clai......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Premier Diagnostic Ctrs., LLC
...from the essential requirements of the law resulting in manifest injustice has occurred as well. See Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So.3d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ("Because the trial court order at issue directed the production of Castle Key's ‘claims file’ when the issue of coverag......
-
Safepoint Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez
...4th DCA 2012) (citing Superior Ins. Co. v. Holden, 642 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) ); see also Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ("Under established Florida law, ‘discovery which concerns only potential issues of bad faith or other purported im......
-
Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez
...accrue if Rodriguez is successful in his underlying claim,1 would constitute irreparable harm. See generally Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So.3d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ; Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Atl. Hosp. of Fla., LLC, 93 So.3d 501, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). At the outset, we note ......