Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Zayas Men's Shop, Inc., 89-1082
| Decision Date | 03 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1082,89-1082 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2312,551 So.2d 553 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2312 ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. ZAYAS MEN'S SHOP, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler and John Bond Atkinson and Wendy F. Lumish, Miami and Sharon Lee Stebbins, for petitioner.
Ress, Mintz & Truppman and Mark Mintz, North Miami, for respondent.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari which seeks review of a trial court order denying the defendant/insurer Royal Insurance Company of America's motion to abate the plaintiff/insured Zayas Men's Shop, Inc.'s claims below for bad-faith failure to settle an insurance claim, see Sections 624.155, 626.9541(1)(i)(3), Florida Statutes (1987), until its underlying claim below for breach of the insurance contract is resolved in its favor. We deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Although we have held under similar circumstances that a writ of certiorari lies to quash such a trial court order and to require the abatement of the bad-faith claim, see Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Lugassy, 538 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Mayor, 538 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lovell, 530 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); one of our primary bases for so holding was that such a failure to abate would otherwise result in irreparable harm to the defendant/insurer, namely, that the latter would necessarily be required in this joint action to disclose in discovery a vital item solely on the bad-faith claim which it would not otherwise be required to disclose on the breach of the insurance contract claim, to wit: the insurance claim file. See Fidelity & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 525 So.2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 528 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1988). The Florida Supreme Court, however, has since held that the insurance claim file is no longer automatically discoverable on the bad-faith claim as to matters which fall within the attorney-client privilege and work product privilege. Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 1168 (Fla.1989)(approving 522 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). This being so, it is plain that the underpinnings for the Mayor, Lovell, and Lugassy decisions are no longer viable, and that such decisions no longer state the law.
Certiorari denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...relying on Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 1168 (Fla.1989) (per curiam), Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Zayas Men's Shop, Inc., 551 So.2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (per curiam) and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 533 So.2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)); Royal Ins. Co. of A......
-
Rubio v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 94-2821
...claim file while the underlying liability suit was pending. Colonial Penn was quashed by this court in Royal Ins. Co. v. Zayas Men's Shop, Inc., 551 So.2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), a breach of insurance contract case. The court Although we have held under similar circumstances that a writ of ......
-
General Acc. Ins. Co. v. American Mut. Ins. Co.
...does apply to the instant case, and that Kujawa and State Farm are controlling. See also, Royal Insurance Company of America v. Zayas Men's Shop, Inc., 551 So.2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Melendez, 550 So.2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA Accordingly, we grant the petition for ce......
-
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Grant
...of the supreme court in Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 1168 (Fla.1989). See Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Zayas Men's Shop, Inc., 551 So.2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). As the reasoning in Mayor no longer states the law, we adopt the position set forth in State Farm Mut. Auto.......