United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Jennings, 97-2668

• Decision Date: 23 February 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-2668,97-2668
• Citation: 707 So.2d 384
• Parties: 23 Fla. L. Weekly D583 UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a reciprocal interinsurance exchange, Petitioner, v. Dale E. JENNINGS, Jr., and Tammy M. Jennings, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 384

707 So.2d 384

23 Fla. L. Weekly D583

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a reciprocal interinsurance exchange, Petitioner, v. Dale E. JENNINGS, Jr., and Tammy M. Jennings, Respondents.

No. 97-2668.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

Feb. 23, 1998.

Rehearing Denied March 24, 1998.

Robert C. Gobleman and Jack B. Cooper, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Thomas S. Edwards, Jr., and Sarah Helene Sharp of Peek, Cobb, Edwards & Ashton, P.A., Jacksonville, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

In this original proceeding, petitioner asks this court to quash a discovery order compelling production in a third party bad-faith action of the insurance claims file relating to the underlying tort litigation. The bad-faith action was initiated after the parties stipulated that it would not be necessary for the respondents to obtain an excess judgment as a prerequisite to filing the claim. Petitioner argues that while the stipulation allowed respondents to pursue their third party bad-faith claim in the absence of an excess judgment, that agreement does not allow respondents to discover attorney-client and work product privileged materials. We disagree and deny the petition.

In December 1993, the son of petitioner's insured, who was driving the insured vehicle, collided head-on with a car driven by respondent Dale Jennings. Respondents initiated settlement negotiations with petitioner in March 1994. Those negotiations broke down in May 1994 and respondents filed suit against petitioner's insured.

In November 1994, respondents and petitioner's insured executed a settlement agreement which conditionally released all respondents' claims against the insured in exchange for the right to pursue a third party bad-faith claim against petitioner. Petitioner, respondents, and the insured then executed a stipulation specifically granting respondents the right to pursue their third party bad-faith claim against petitioner in the absence of an excess judgment. The stipulation specifically stated that it would "serve as the functional equivalent of an excess judgment in the amount of $75,000" in accordance with the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Cunningham v. Standard Guaranty Ins. Co., 630 So.2d 179 (Fla.1994).

Neither the settlement agreement between respondents and the insured nor the Cunningham stipulation specifically addressed whether respondents would be entitled to discovery of the entire claims file during the third party bad-faith action,...