Preview
Filing # 104098023 E-Filed 02/28/2020 02:37:05 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
JESUS VILLEDA AND JHANETH
VILLEDA,
CASE NO: CACE-19-021344
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
Defendant. /
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
COMES NOW, Defendant, CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
(“CITIZENS”), by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to the applicable Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure hereby files this Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Objections
to Plaintiff's Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendant’s Designated Corporate Representative
Pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6), and as grounds hereto states:
1. The above-styled matter involves a suit alleging a breach of contract regarding
homeowner insurance benefits for an insurance policy issued by CITIZENS bearing policy number
02178693-3 to the Plaintiffs.
2. Plaintiffs have filed their Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum, of
Defendant’s Designated Corporate Representative Pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6), to take place on
March 24, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. The Corporate Representative of the Defendant would be testifying
regarding matters outside the scope of discovery because nothing discovered could possibly lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. Plaintiffs’ initial notice sets forth eleven (11)
topics that are designated to elicit testimony about claims, handling, claims decisions, or coverage
issues. See Plaintiffs’ Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Defendant’s Designated
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 02/28/2020 02:37:17 PM.****Corporate Representatives Pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6), attached and marked hereto as Exhibit
“A”
3. Defendant will offer to the Plaintiffs to produce for deposition any field adjuster
who actually inspected the property and determined the scope and estimate of claimed damage.
4. There is no legal basis to depose a corporate official as to claims handling matters
in this first party coverage case prior to a determination of liability under the policy.
5. There are several distinct grounds why any such deposition should not be allowed.
Any such deposition is beyond the proper scope of discovery in this coverage case and would not
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
6. Issues involving “claims decisions” are irrelevant and privileged in this first party
coverage dispute where any liability owing under the subject insurance policy has yet to be
determined and, therefore, such information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. See, e.g. Nat’! Car Rental Sys. Inc. v. Kosakowski, 659 So. 24
455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (inconsistencies in testimony and discrepancies are not a basis to compel
production of a claim file which was work product).
7. The request is meant to do nothing other than harass the Company because any
deposition or discovery in this case, of a Corporate Representative, to address such claims handling
and coverage issues including how the claim was investigated is not in good faith, plainly improper
under the circumstances and not discoverable as a matter of law. See generally Southern Bell Tel.
& Tel. Co, v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994): see also Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632
So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car, 736 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1999).8. Plaintiffs’ request to depose such Corporate Representative regarding such internal
insurer proprietary work product has been repeatedly deemed privileged by all Courts reviewing
such form of discovery in this insurance coverage setting.
9. Not until a determination of coverage/liability has been made by the Court and
damages have been determined can the insured depose claims handling representatives as to the
insurer’s business policies or practices regarding the handling of claims in an action for insurance
benefits. Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Rodriquez, 960 So, 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
10. It is well within the sound discretion of the trial court to grant or deny a litigant’s
motion for protective order as to discovery issues in general but it is the duty of such a court to
grant such a motion when matters which would cause irreparable harm would be divulged without
such a protective order.
11. It is well established in a first party dispute challenging coverage determinations or
giving rise to contractual issues, Plaintiffs are not entitled to depose the insurer regarding its claim
investigation and determination as the testimony is the insurer’s work product. See Am. Reliance
Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 671 So. 2d 250, 251-52 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1996) (quashing order compelling answers to deposition questions regarding adjuster’s
investigation and evaluation of claim); State Farm Fla. Tns. Co., v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2013) (quashing order requiring insurer to provide a representative to testify as to the claims
manual, guidelines and the insurance policy); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So. 34.
982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (in first party coverage dispute, claim file materials including claims
notes, activity logs, and loss notice, were not discoverable even if prepared prior to a determination
of the claim); Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Vreeland, 973 So. 2d 668, 673-72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
(quashing order requiring insurance company’s corporate representative to testify regardinginsurer’s denial of coverage and to produce claims files as such information was work product);
see also Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos,
Inc., 813 So. 2d 250, 251-52 (Fla. 34 DCA 2002) (quashing order denying insurer’s motion for
protective order from deposition and production of documents ruling that testimony of insurer and
production of claim file were protected as work product where coverage determination was at
issue); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farm, Inc., 754 So. 2d 865, 866-67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (quashing
order compelling discovery of insurer’s business practices where coverage had not yet been
determined). See also State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA
2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer’s claim file, investigative reports,
adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies and manuals, training material s, and other
internal information as not relevant and protected as work product in first party breach of contract
action contesting insurer's determination of amount insurer was willing to pay for damage to
home); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cook, 744 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding
an insurer’s internal manuals are protected from discovery until and unless a bad faith claim is
prosecuted); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 34 DCA 1995)
(holding homeowners insurer’s claim files, manuals, guidelines and documents concerning its
claim handling procedures were irrelevant to first party dispute over insurer’s refusal to pay
hurricane claim under policy, and therefore did not have to be produced and insurer’s surveillance
photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were protected by work product privilege).
These rules apply even if the lawsuit involves a dispute over additional benefits on a covered loss.
Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 927 So. 2d 122, 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
12. Further, to the extent Plaintiffs seek to inquire about overall claims handling, delay,
procedures and general investigation process, as are plainly the goals of this corporate
Afrepresentative deposition, this is nothing more than a back-door attempt at bad faith discovery, all
of which clearly prohibited in a breach of contract action for non-payment of a claim. OBE
Insurance Corp. v. Chalfonte Condo. Apartment Assn., 94 So. 34 541 (Fla. 2012); General Star
Indemnity v. Allantic Hospitality of Fla. LLC, 93 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
13. Any interpretation of policy language is not discoverable. The company’s opinion
(whether characterized as a lay or expert opinion) on the interpretation of the policy is not
admissible on the Court’s legal interpretation. See §90.702 Fla. Stat.; Salomon v. SECURITY Prop.
Ins. Corp., 2014 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 46703, *4 (holding that “It is well settled that “the interpretation
of an insurance contract is a question of law" not subject to opinion testimony” and that “[i]t is
improper to suggest that a corporate representative could properly be deposed conceming his/her
own interpretation of the policy.”); Granada Jns. Co. v. Ricks, 2009 WL 1393372, at n.l (holding
it wholly without merit to suggest an insurer’s representative may be deposed concerning policy
interpretation); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swain, 921 So. 24717, 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quashing order
compelling insurer to respond to discovery regarding its interpretation of policy language and
holding construction of policy is for the court), United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Meridian of Palm
Beach Condominium Ass'n. Inc., 700 So. 2d 1 61, 1 62 (Fla. 4111 DCA 1992) (error to allow
“expert” opinion on policy interpretation).
14. It is readily apparent the demand for corporate representative's deposition is
harassing, may be designed to improperly increase the costs of this litigation, is burdensome, and
is beyond the scope of Discovery under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
15. Plaintiffs have failed to provide any explanation as to the purpose of any of the
requested areas of inquiry which would be relevant to the pending litigation which would beprovided by a corporate designee. All information requested is cither improper or can be
determined by the deposition of the field adjuster, the person who actually inspected the property.
16. In this instant case, Plaintiffs are clearly seeking insurer work product, privileged
information which is precluded in this first party action. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ request for
a Corporate Representative deposition must be rejected as a matter of law as premature and
harassing.
17. Before even getting to the merits of the request, the topics are extremely vague and
unduly broad and not tailored in any way to the dispute, also improperly alleged as the subject of
the deposition. A notice which merely identifies a topic such as “the allegations set forth in the
Complaint” are too broad to comply with the rule requiring reasonable patlicularity. Carriage
Hills Condo., Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors. Inc., 109 So. 34 329, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
18. Proposed topic 4 clearly seek claims handling and bad faith type discovery that is
beyond the scope of permissible discovery and otherwise seek information protected as insurer
work product. These topics all seek information on how the claim was handled or processed and
whether the determination was reasonable not the merits of the factual dispute between the persons
providing the opinions relied upon who can be deposed, the claims handling personnel not having
any personal knowledge of the items, not having inspected them. The letter(s) explaining the denial
and the basis have been produced,
19. Topic 7 requests a Citizens employee to testify regarding Citizens’ Affirmative
defenses. This is inappropriate in that it requests the Corporate Representative to provide a legal
opinion and/or disclose attorney-client information and communications.
20. Additionally, Plaintiffs request production of documents clearly beyond the scope
of permissible discovery. Plaintiffs request copies of specific types of documents contained within
6] °the claim file that relate to how the claim was handled. All documents contained in the claim file
to which privilege has been asserted have been identified in Defendant’s privilege log and all other
non-privileged documents from the claim file have be produced. Likewise, a request for
professional licenses of a Citizens employee is solely for purposes of bad faith discovery and not
discoverable in this case. See Walter v. Page, 638 So. 2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding
that a “subpoena duces tecum is not the equivalent of a search warrant, and should not be used as
a fishing expedition to require a witness to produce broad categorics of documents which the party
can search to find what may be wanted”); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012
(Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quashing order compelling discovery of insurer's claims files, internal claims
documents, and work product when coverage was at issue); see also Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla.
vy. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 86 So. 34
1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). It should also be noted that “requiring the disclosure of an insurer’s
claim file during the litigation of coverage issues would result ‘in irreparable harm that cannot be
adequately addressed on a plenary appeal.’” Geico General Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 927 So. 2d 122, 126
(Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Baughman, 741 So. 2d 624, 625 (Fla. 2d DCA
1999)).
21. Undersigned counsel has attempted in good faith to resolve the issue(s) raised in
this Motion but has been unsuccessful; thus, a hearing on this Motion is necessary.
22. Based on the foregoing, this Court should enter a ruling sustaining Citizens’
objection to the requested deposition and documents request.
23. Citizens requests an award of expenses incurred in relation with this motion
pursuant to Rule 1.280(c) and 1.380(a)(4).
AeWHEREFORE, Defendant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, requests this Court
to enter an order granting this motion as to any issues related to Plaintiffs’ request for the
deposition of a Corporate Representative of the Defendant in this first party insurance coverage
dispute, awarding Citizens its expenses incurred in relation to this motion, including all atiomeys’
fees and costs incurred, and granting to Citizens such other and further relief as this Court deems
just and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
J HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via electronic
mail to Annette Del Aguila, Esq., Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez & Martinez, P.L.,
eservice@mellawyers.com; and mellaw7@mellawyers.com on this Aashiay of February 2020.
RUBINTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Bank of America Building
3801 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 300
Hollywood, Florida 33021
Telephone: 954-251-5500
Fax: 954-251-5501
By: /s/ Vida Jasaitis.
JEFFREY A. RUBINTON, ESQ.
Florida Bar: 821756
VIDA E. JASAITIS, ESQ.
Florida Bar: 245800
Primary E-Mail: vjasaitis@rubintoniaw.com
Secondary E-Mail: pdesanti@rubintonlaw.com
Tertiary E-Mail: eservice(@rubintonlaw.com
8!Filing # 101750012 E-Filed 01/16/2020 10:00:54 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR,
BROWARD COUNTY COUNTY, FLORIDA
JESUS VILLEDA and
JHANETH VILLEDA, CASE NO.: CACE-19-021344
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
(Plaintiff's Counsel to appear telephonically)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorneys will take the following
deposition at the place, date and time indicated below:
NAME... DATE TIME PLACE
Corporate U.S. Legal Support
Representative with March 24, 2020 11:00 A.M. | 225 Water Street, Suite 1200
knowledge pursuant to Jacksonville, FL 32202
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310(b)(6) (904) 359-0583
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a
special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the offices of the
undersigned at 305-444-5969
Pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, you are hereby requested to
designate one or more officers, directors, managing agents or other persons who consent to testify
on behalf of the parties being deposed as the persons having the most knowledge concerning the
area of the subject matter described on Schedule A attached hereto.
Upon oral examination before a commissioner appointed by the Court, a Notary Public, or any
other officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Florida, who is neither a
relative nor employee of such attomey or counsel and who is not financially interested in this
action, The deposition will continue from day to day until completed. The deposition is being taken
for purposes of discovery and for use as evidence in this case, for use at trial, or for such other
purposes as are permitted under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
The deponent is to bring at the above time and place the following documents li
attached Schedule B.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the
Florida E-Filing Portal to Vida Jasaitis, Esq., Rubinton & Associates, P.A., at
VJasaitis@rubintonlaw.com; jlarsen@rubintonlaw.com, on this 16th day of January 2020.
Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez & Martinez P.L.
Counsel for the Insured
2601 South Bayshore Drive, 18" Floor
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Telephone No. (305) 444-5969
Facsimile No. (305) 444-1939
Email: Mellaw7@mellawyers.com
Secondary Email: Eservice@mellawyers.com
By: /s/ Annette Del Aguila
Annette Del Aguila, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 4054610.
SCHEDULE A
The allegations set forth in the Complaint.
The Insurance Policy entered into between the Insurer and the Insured as referenced in
the Complaint.
All facts related to the Insurer’s involvement in the Insured’s claim as referenced in the
Complaint.
All facts related to communications between the Insured and agents of the Insurer as it
relates to the allegations set forth in the Complaint.
The adjustment and claim handling of the instant claim alleged in the Complaint. .
The dollar value of the Insured’s damages.
All facts and information supporting your defenses to the Plaintiff(s) claim for insurance
proceeds as alleged in the Complaint.
All facts and information supporting Your Answer and Affirrmative Defenses.
Defendant’s Discovery responses.
All facts and information supporting any defense or exclusion of coverage under the
Insurance Policy entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant as referenced in the
Complaint.
The identity, job title, job description and activitied of all persons (including any non-
employees) who participated in any way in Defendant’s investigation of the Loss as
described in the Complaint.1.
SCHEDULE B
Please bring a copy of all documents in your possession for the instant Claim as defined
in the Complaint that are not protected by a claimed privilege. If you are not producing
documents pursuant to this Schedule B request because you are claiming a privilege,
please provide a privilege log. If a document is not produced and not referenced on a
privilege log we will assume it does not exist.
Preview
Filing # 104098023 E-Filed 02/28/2020 02:37:05 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA JESUS VILLEDA AND JHANETH VILLEDA, CASE NO: CACE-19-021344 Plaintiff(s), vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM COMES NOW, Defendant, CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION (“CITIZENS”), by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure hereby files this Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Plaintiff's Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendant’s Designated Corporate Representative Pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6), and as grounds hereto states: 1. The above-styled matter involves a suit alleging a breach of contract regarding homeowner insurance benefits for an insurance policy issued by CITIZENS bearing policy number 02178693-3 to the Plaintiffs. 2. Plaintiffs have filed their Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum, of Defendant’s Designated Corporate Representative Pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6), to take place on March 24, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. The Corporate Representative of the Defendant would be testifying regarding matters outside the scope of discovery because nothing discovered could possibly lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. Plaintiffs’ initial notice sets forth eleven (11) topics that are designated to elicit testimony about claims, handling, claims decisions, or coverage issues. See Plaintiffs’ Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Defendant’s Designated *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 02/28/2020 02:37:17 PM.****Corporate Representatives Pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6), attached and marked hereto as Exhibit “A” 3. Defendant will offer to the Plaintiffs to produce for deposition any field adjuster who actually inspected the property and determined the scope and estimate of claimed damage. 4. There is no legal basis to depose a corporate official as to claims handling matters in this first party coverage case prior to a determination of liability under the policy. 5. There are several distinct grounds why any such deposition should not be allowed. Any such deposition is beyond the proper scope of discovery in this coverage case and would not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6. Issues involving “claims decisions” are irrelevant and privileged in this first party coverage dispute where any liability owing under the subject insurance policy has yet to be determined and, therefore, such information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See, e.g. Nat’! Car Rental Sys. Inc. v. Kosakowski, 659 So. 24 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (inconsistencies in testimony and discrepancies are not a basis to compel production of a claim file which was work product). 7. The request is meant to do nothing other than harass the Company because any deposition or discovery in this case, of a Corporate Representative, to address such claims handling and coverage issues including how the claim was investigated is not in good faith, plainly improper under the circumstances and not discoverable as a matter of law. See generally Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co, v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994): see also Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car, 736 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).8. Plaintiffs’ request to depose such Corporate Representative regarding such internal insurer proprietary work product has been repeatedly deemed privileged by all Courts reviewing such form of discovery in this insurance coverage setting. 9. Not until a determination of coverage/liability has been made by the Court and damages have been determined can the insured depose claims handling representatives as to the insurer’s business policies or practices regarding the handling of claims in an action for insurance benefits. Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Rodriquez, 960 So, 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). 10. It is well within the sound discretion of the trial court to grant or deny a litigant’s motion for protective order as to discovery issues in general but it is the duty of such a court to grant such a motion when matters which would cause irreparable harm would be divulged without such a protective order. 11. It is well established in a first party dispute challenging coverage determinations or giving rise to contractual issues, Plaintiffs are not entitled to depose the insurer regarding its claim investigation and determination as the testimony is the insurer’s work product. See Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 671 So. 2d 250, 251-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (quashing order compelling answers to deposition questions regarding adjuster’s investigation and evaluation of claim); State Farm Fla. Tns. Co., v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quashing order requiring insurer to provide a representative to testify as to the claims manual, guidelines and the insurance policy); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So. 34. 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (in first party coverage dispute, claim file materials including claims notes, activity logs, and loss notice, were not discoverable even if prepared prior to a determination of the claim); Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Vreeland, 973 So. 2d 668, 673-72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (quashing order requiring insurance company’s corporate representative to testify regardinginsurer’s denial of coverage and to produce claims files as such information was work product); see also Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250, 251-52 (Fla. 34 DCA 2002) (quashing order denying insurer’s motion for protective order from deposition and production of documents ruling that testimony of insurer and production of claim file were protected as work product where coverage determination was at issue); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farm, Inc., 754 So. 2d 865, 866-67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (quashing order compelling discovery of insurer’s business practices where coverage had not yet been determined). See also State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer’s claim file, investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies and manuals, training material s, and other internal information as not relevant and protected as work product in first party breach of contract action contesting insurer's determination of amount insurer was willing to pay for damage to home); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cook, 744 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding an insurer’s internal manuals are protected from discovery until and unless a bad faith claim is prosecuted); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 34 DCA 1995) (holding homeowners insurer’s claim files, manuals, guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant to first party dispute over insurer’s refusal to pay hurricane claim under policy, and therefore did not have to be produced and insurer’s surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were protected by work product privilege). These rules apply even if the lawsuit involves a dispute over additional benefits on a covered loss. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 927 So. 2d 122, 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). 12. Further, to the extent Plaintiffs seek to inquire about overall claims handling, delay, procedures and general investigation process, as are plainly the goals of this corporate Afrepresentative deposition, this is nothing more than a back-door attempt at bad faith discovery, all of which clearly prohibited in a breach of contract action for non-payment of a claim. OBE Insurance Corp. v. Chalfonte Condo. Apartment Assn., 94 So. 34 541 (Fla. 2012); General Star Indemnity v. Allantic Hospitality of Fla. LLC, 93 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). 13. Any interpretation of policy language is not discoverable. The company’s opinion (whether characterized as a lay or expert opinion) on the interpretation of the policy is not admissible on the Court’s legal interpretation. See §90.702 Fla. Stat.; Salomon v. SECURITY Prop. Ins. Corp., 2014 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 46703, *4 (holding that “It is well settled that “the interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law" not subject to opinion testimony” and that “[i]t is improper to suggest that a corporate representative could properly be deposed conceming his/her own interpretation of the policy.”); Granada Jns. Co. v. Ricks, 2009 WL 1393372, at n.l (holding it wholly without merit to suggest an insurer’s representative may be deposed concerning policy interpretation); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swain, 921 So. 24717, 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quashing order compelling insurer to respond to discovery regarding its interpretation of policy language and holding construction of policy is for the court), United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Meridian of Palm Beach Condominium Ass'n. Inc., 700 So. 2d 1 61, 1 62 (Fla. 4111 DCA 1992) (error to allow “expert” opinion on policy interpretation). 14. It is readily apparent the demand for corporate representative's deposition is harassing, may be designed to improperly increase the costs of this litigation, is burdensome, and is beyond the scope of Discovery under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. 15. Plaintiffs have failed to provide any explanation as to the purpose of any of the requested areas of inquiry which would be relevant to the pending litigation which would beprovided by a corporate designee. All information requested is cither improper or can be determined by the deposition of the field adjuster, the person who actually inspected the property. 16. In this instant case, Plaintiffs are clearly seeking insurer work product, privileged information which is precluded in this first party action. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ request for a Corporate Representative deposition must be rejected as a matter of law as premature and harassing. 17. Before even getting to the merits of the request, the topics are extremely vague and unduly broad and not tailored in any way to the dispute, also improperly alleged as the subject of the deposition. A notice which merely identifies a topic such as “the allegations set forth in the Complaint” are too broad to comply with the rule requiring reasonable patlicularity. Carriage Hills Condo., Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors. Inc., 109 So. 34 329, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). 18. Proposed topic 4 clearly seek claims handling and bad faith type discovery that is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and otherwise seek information protected as insurer work product. These topics all seek information on how the claim was handled or processed and whether the determination was reasonable not the merits of the factual dispute between the persons providing the opinions relied upon who can be deposed, the claims handling personnel not having any personal knowledge of the items, not having inspected them. The letter(s) explaining the denial and the basis have been produced, 19. Topic 7 requests a Citizens employee to testify regarding Citizens’ Affirmative defenses. This is inappropriate in that it requests the Corporate Representative to provide a legal opinion and/or disclose attorney-client information and communications. 20. Additionally, Plaintiffs request production of documents clearly beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Plaintiffs request copies of specific types of documents contained within 6] °the claim file that relate to how the claim was handled. All documents contained in the claim file to which privilege has been asserted have been identified in Defendant’s privilege log and all other non-privileged documents from the claim file have be produced. Likewise, a request for professional licenses of a Citizens employee is solely for purposes of bad faith discovery and not discoverable in this case. See Walter v. Page, 638 So. 2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that a “subpoena duces tecum is not the equivalent of a search warrant, and should not be used as a fishing expedition to require a witness to produce broad categorics of documents which the party can search to find what may be wanted”); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quashing order compelling discovery of insurer's claims files, internal claims documents, and work product when coverage was at issue); see also Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. vy. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 86 So. 34 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). It should also be noted that “requiring the disclosure of an insurer’s claim file during the litigation of coverage issues would result ‘in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on a plenary appeal.’” Geico General Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 927 So. 2d 122, 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Baughman, 741 So. 2d 624, 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). 21. Undersigned counsel has attempted in good faith to resolve the issue(s) raised in this Motion but has been unsuccessful; thus, a hearing on this Motion is necessary. 22. Based on the foregoing, this Court should enter a ruling sustaining Citizens’ objection to the requested deposition and documents request. 23. Citizens requests an award of expenses incurred in relation with this motion pursuant to Rule 1.280(c) and 1.380(a)(4). AeWHEREFORE, Defendant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, requests this Court to enter an order granting this motion as to any issues related to Plaintiffs’ request for the deposition of a Corporate Representative of the Defendant in this first party insurance coverage dispute, awarding Citizens its expenses incurred in relation to this motion, including all atiomeys’ fees and costs incurred, and granting to Citizens such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE J HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via electronic mail to Annette Del Aguila, Esq., Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez & Martinez, P.L., eservice@mellawyers.com; and mellaw7@mellawyers.com on this Aashiay of February 2020. RUBINTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Bank of America Building 3801 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 300 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Telephone: 954-251-5500 Fax: 954-251-5501 By: /s/ Vida Jasaitis. JEFFREY A. RUBINTON, ESQ. Florida Bar: 821756 VIDA E. JASAITIS, ESQ. Florida Bar: 245800 Primary E-Mail: vjasaitis@rubintoniaw.com Secondary E-Mail: pdesanti@rubintonlaw.com Tertiary E-Mail: eservice(@rubintonlaw.com 8!Filing # 101750012 E-Filed 01/16/2020 10:00:54 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR, BROWARD COUNTY COUNTY, FLORIDA JESUS VILLEDA and JHANETH VILLEDA, CASE NO.: CACE-19-021344 Plaintiffs, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM (Plaintiff's Counsel to appear telephonically) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorneys will take the following deposition at the place, date and time indicated below: NAME... DATE TIME PLACE Corporate U.S. Legal Support Representative with March 24, 2020 11:00 A.M. | 225 Water Street, Suite 1200 knowledge pursuant to Jacksonville, FL 32202 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310(b)(6) (904) 359-0583 In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the offices of the undersigned at 305-444-5969 Pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, you are hereby requested to designate one or more officers, directors, managing agents or other persons who consent to testify on behalf of the parties being deposed as the persons having the most knowledge concerning the area of the subject matter described on Schedule A attached hereto. Upon oral examination before a commissioner appointed by the Court, a Notary Public, or any other officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Florida, who is neither a relative nor employee of such attomey or counsel and who is not financially interested in this action, The deposition will continue from day to day until completed. The deposition is being taken for purposes of discovery and for use as evidence in this case, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The deponent is to bring at the above time and place the following documents li attached Schedule B.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the Florida E-Filing Portal to Vida Jasaitis, Esq., Rubinton & Associates, P.A., at VJasaitis@rubintonlaw.com; jlarsen@rubintonlaw.com, on this 16th day of January 2020. Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez & Martinez P.L. Counsel for the Insured 2601 South Bayshore Drive, 18" Floor Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Telephone No. (305) 444-5969 Facsimile No. (305) 444-1939 Email: Mellaw7@mellawyers.com Secondary Email: Eservice@mellawyers.com By: /s/ Annette Del Aguila Annette Del Aguila, Esq. Florida Bar No. 4054610. SCHEDULE A The allegations set forth in the Complaint. The Insurance Policy entered into between the Insurer and the Insured as referenced in the Complaint. All facts related to the Insurer’s involvement in the Insured’s claim as referenced in the Complaint. All facts related to communications between the Insured and agents of the Insurer as it relates to the allegations set forth in the Complaint. The adjustment and claim handling of the instant claim alleged in the Complaint. . The dollar value of the Insured’s damages. All facts and information supporting your defenses to the Plaintiff(s) claim for insurance proceeds as alleged in the Complaint. All facts and information supporting Your Answer and Affirrmative Defenses. Defendant’s Discovery responses. All facts and information supporting any defense or exclusion of coverage under the Insurance Policy entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant as referenced in the Complaint. The identity, job title, job description and activitied of all persons (including any non- employees) who participated in any way in Defendant’s investigation of the Loss as described in the Complaint.1. SCHEDULE B Please bring a copy of all documents in your possession for the instant Claim as defined in the Complaint that are not protected by a claimed privilege. If you are not producing documents pursuant to this Schedule B request because you are claiming a privilege, please provide a privilege log. If a document is not produced and not referenced on a privilege log we will assume it does not exist.