HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,
MICHAEL MAHADY and NICOLE MAHADY, Respondents.
final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; David E. French, Judge; L.T. Case
J. Salmon and Karl A. Forrest of Groelle & Salmon, P.A.,
Tampa, for petitioner.
Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, Mediation &
Arbitration, Fort Lauderdale and Michael D. Kaplan of Kaplan
Law Group, Hollywood, for respondents.
Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company
("Insurer") petitions for a writ of certiorari to
quash an interlocutory order requiring discovery of documents
in its underwriting and claims files. Insurer argues that the
discovery is protected work product or irrelevant, or both.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure Rule 9.030(b)(2)(A) and grant the petition.
and Nicole Mahady ("Insureds") had a
homeowner's insurance policy issued by Insurer. After
Insureds suffered damage to their home as a result of
Hurricane Irma, they notified Insurer and it opened a claim.
Insurer subsequently issued payment towards Insureds'
claim for dwelling damages, and later tendered supplemental
payment for mold and additional dwelling damages.
then sued Insurer for breach of contract, alleging that the
above payments were insufficient and failed to cover all
damages. Insurer admitted that it issued the policy, received
notice of the loss, and issued a claim number. Insurer
asserted a variety of affirmative defenses, which the
Insureds denied. Thereafter, Insureds requested production of
documents and answers to interrogatories. Insurer produced
many documents, but objected to others, arguing that the
requests were work product, irrelevant, or both. Insurer did
not file a privilege log.
a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued its order
which overruled Insurer's objections to certain
interrogatories and production requests, leaving six
discovery requests at issue in the instant petition. Two
involve the underwriting file and the remaining four involve
the claims file. The trial court summarily overruled the two
objections concerning the underwriting file. In overruling
the remaining four production requests, the court commented
that these were "overruled to the extent that [I]nsurer
must produce all documents up until the time the subject
claim was denied."
now petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the order
requiring discovery of documents in its underwriting and
obtain a writ of certiorari, the petitioner must establish
that the discovery order was a departure from the essential
requirements of law resulting in a material injury that will
affect the remainder of the proceedings below and the injury
cannot be corrected on appeal. Allstate Ins. Co. v.
Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94-95 (Fla. 1995).
trial court denied Insurer's claims of work product
privilege without making any supporting findings. We have
held that "such findings are necessary to facilitate a
meaningful review of the trial court's reasons for
denying work product objections." Dismas Charities,
Inc. v. Dabbs, 795 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
(granting certiorari review because of the trial ...