Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Florida Dept. of Ins.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-04123,96-04123 |
| Citation | 694 So.2d 772 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1037 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE and Gary Ricketts, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Daniel C. Brown and David P. Healy of Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant & Yon, P.A., Tallahassee, and Gregory S. Karawan and Scott A. Kamber of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, New York City, for Petitioner.
Michael H. Davidson and Kelly A. Cruz, Department of Insurance, Tallahassee, for Respondent Department of Ins.
Peter J. Winders and Lorien Smith Johnson of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent Ricketts.
Prudential Insurance Company of America seeks review of a nonfinal administrative order requiring Prudential to produce documents that it asserts are fact work product 1 for inspection by the Department of Insurance's attorneys. Prudential is not a party to the Department's administrative action against Gary Ricketts, a former Prudential life insurance agent. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides for immediate review of such orders "if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy." An order requiring discovery is a proper subject for review "since an erroneously compelled disclosure, once made, may constitute irreparable harm which cannot be remedied by way of appeal." Florida Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy, 471 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We grant review and quash the order for the reasons set forth herein.
Prudential has demonstrated that the documents in question constitute fact work product by submitting unrefuted affidavits stating that in response to policyholder accusations in complaints and lawsuits and to extensive news reports of churning and sales misconduct by Prudential agents, Prudential's legal staff assumed responsibility for oversight of responses to policyholder complaints pending or received after March 6, 1995. The affidavits assert that all of these documents were generated by Prudential employees who received, evaluated, and responded to policyholder complaints in anticipation of the likelihood of litigation. "Even preliminary investigative materials are privileged if compiled in response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim." Anchor Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So.2d 760, 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); see also Waste Management, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 571 So.2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) ().
Before a party can obtain discovery of work product material, it must show that it "has need to the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz
...789 So.2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McRae's, Inc. v. Moreland, 765 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fla. Dep't of Ins., 694 So.2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Anchor Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So.2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Because we conclude there is clear......
-
Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 3D20-1515
...no showing below of those exceptional circumstances required to justify compelled disclosure. See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fla. Dep't of Ins., 694 So. 2d 772, 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that since the department failed to show need and inability to obtain information by other mean......
-
Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Herzoff
...testimony in support of this proposition. Assertions of counsel do not fulfill this requirement. See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fla. Dept. of Ins., 694 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ; Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So. 2d 1188, 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). CSX Transp., Inc. v. Carpent......
-
Federal Exp. Corp. v. Cantway, 4D00-3546.
...in question were prepared after Federal Express' legal department assumed oversight is significant. See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fla. Dep't of Ins., 694 So.2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (granting certiorari relief as to nonfinal administrative order compelling insurer to produce to departm......
-
Privileges
...the Department of Insurance failed to demonstrate “need” or “undue hardship.” Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Florida Dept. of Ins. , 694 So.2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Inapro, Inc. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A. A motion to compel discovery of work product must contain a particularized showing ......