Koken v. American Service Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 75--1399
| Decision Date | 27 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1399,75--1399 |
| Citation | 330 So.2d 805 |
| Parties | Joyce C. KOKEN and James N. Koken, her husband, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Baxter, Friedman, Robbins & Fischer, North Miami Beach, for petitioners.
Robert W. Hervey, Coral Gables, for respondent.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Petitioners Joyce and James Koken by way of certiorari seek review of an order granting defendant insurer's motion for protective order in an action for bad faith in failing to settle a personal injury action within policy limits.
Having sustained injuries as a result of an automobile accident, Llewellyn Price filed suit against Joyce and James Koken and their liability insurer 1, American Service Mutual Insurance Company, and received a jury verdict for $18,750 which was $8,750 in excess of petitioners' policy limits. Thereafter the Kokens filed the instant action against their insurer American Service Mutual, the respondent, for allegedly exercising bad faith in refusing to settle within the $10,000 policy limit. During discovery petitioners served a subpoena duces tecum for deposition on respondent's attorney who also represented the petitioners in the litigation with Pierce. The subpoena requested the entire file pertaining to the claim of Pierce v. Koken, Case No. 73--25230 including all papers furnished by the adjuster of the respondent insurer and all correspondence, recommendations, etc. contained in the attorney's file relating to the Pierce-Koken lawsuit. Pursuant to RCP 1.280(c) respondent insurer filed a motion for protective order on the grounds, inter alia, that the materials sought by petitioners are privileged pursuant to the attorney/client relationship and constitute work product. After hearing, the trial judge entered an order requiring the production of all carbon copies in the attorney's file that were mailed to persons, firms or corporations other than the respondent insurer. With respect to the remaining items in the file, the trial judge after an in camera inspection entered the following protective order which reads in pertinent part:
'ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is hereby granted as to communications and correspondence contained in Defendant's file between the attorney of record for Defendant and the Defendant in Case No. 73--25230, Pierce v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunn v. National Sec. Fire and Cas. Co.
...v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 So.2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 569 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1990); Koken v. American Service Mutual Insurance Co., Inc., 330 So.2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Stone v. Travelers Insurance Co., 326 So.2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Additional memos or documents in the f......
-
Fidelity and Cas. Ins. Co. of New York v. Taylor
...515 So.2d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Stone, 326 So.2d at 243; Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 325 So.2d at 417; Koken v. American Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 330 So.2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In our view, because the pertinent issues are the same, there is no basis for distinguishing between types of "b......
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz
...417; see also Continental Cas. Co. v. Aqua Jet Filter Sys., Inc., 620 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Koken v. Am. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 330 So.2d 805, 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). By contrast, the rule permitting discovery of materials contained in claim type files in third-party bad faith ......
-
Stalley v. Boozer
...1982) ; Aaron v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 So.2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 569 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1990) ; Koken v. Am. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 330 So.2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) ; Stone v. Travelers Ins. Co., 326 So.2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)); Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 325 ......