State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 92-02506
| Decision Date | 06 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-02506,92-02506 |
| Citation | 611 So.2d 597 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D236 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Judy PETERS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Reinald Werrenrath, III and Kristy Brown of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Keiner, Wack & Dickson, P.A., Orlando, for petitioner.
C. Samuel Newman and James L. Magazine of Beltz, Ruth & Newman, P.A., St. Petersburg, for respondent.
The petitioner, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari of the circuit court's order that denied State Farm's motion for a protective order and compelled the discovery of materials by the respondent, Peters, that State Farm claims are privileged.
The underlying case is a bad faith claim against State Farm seeking recovery of an excess verdict that Peters was awarded against State Farm's insured. The discovery materials at issue here are State Farm's prejudgment file and State Farm's postjudgment file. State Farm contends that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering the production of its files after denying discovery of Peter's prejudgment file.
We deny the petition insofar as it concerns documents, investigative files or claims manuals prepared or generated by State Farm relating to the initial claim up until the judgment (the prejudgment file). See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Stone v. Travelers Ins. Co., 326 So.2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). State Farm will believe they are the victims of inconsistent rulings because the trial court denied them production of the Peter's prejudgment file and this court denied the petition for writ of certiorari which attacked that ruling. Although the result in the trial court may have the appearance of inconsistency, there is no inconsistency so far as this court's rulings concerning questions of discovery.
Ordinarily, certiorari is not available to review an interlocutory order denying discovery because the harm from such orders can be rectified on appeal. Esman v. Board of Regents of Florida, 425 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). As stated in Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987), common-law certiorari is an extraordinary remedy which should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of nonfinal orders.
In order to be reviewable by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fassy v. Crowley
...the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of nonfinal orders." State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So.2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citing Martin-Johnson, Inc.,509 So.2d 1097). "[I]t is extremely rare that erroneous interlocutory rulings can be......
-
Phillips v. Phillips
...Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem'l Hosp. Found., 8 So.3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So.2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and Power Plant Entm't, LLC v. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Dev. Co., 958 So.2d 565, 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ("[F]ew o......
-
Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Memorial Hosp.
...available to review orders denying discovery because in most cases the harm can be corrected on appeal. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So.2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also Power Plant Entm't, LLC v. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Dev. Co., 958 So.2d 565, 567 (Fla. 4th D......
-
Nucci v. Nucci
...harm that cannot be remedied on appeal. See, e.g., Reynolds v. State, 963 So.2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So.2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). A failure to apply the correct standard for deciding a particular issue is a departure from the essential requi......