Preview
Filing # 147601340 E-Filed 04/13/2022 10:46:35 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 50-2021-CA-007831
LONNIE TOWNSEND,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC.,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
COMES NOW, the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned
counsel, and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby
responds to Plaintiffs’, LONNIE TOWNSEND, (“Plaintiff”), First Request for Production:
1. A true and correct certified copy of any insurance policy provided by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff for the subject property, for which this lawsuit is premised,
including but not limited to, declaration sheet(s), all addendums and attachments.
Please include the sworn statement of coverage pages signed by a corporate officer
attesting to the coverage and authenticity of the policies.
RESPONSE: Attached.
2. A copy of all applications of insurance (including initial and renewal)
submitted by and/or on behalf of the Plaintiff for insurance coverage at the subject
property.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
'** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 04/13/2022 10:46:35 AM ***CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
$So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
3. Each and every timesheet, log, and all other documents reflecting time
spent by the Defendant (and its agents and representatives) at the subject property
after notification of the subject loss.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
$So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15 DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
Page 2 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4. Each and every document evidencing the name, address, and the
position/relationship with the Defendant, of every individual who has visited or plans to
visit the Property on behalf of the Defendant.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
$So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
Page 3 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
5. Any and all correspondence or written communications from the
Defendant (and its agents and representatives) to the Plaintiff, which in any manner
pertains to the Plaintiff's loss as described in the Complaint.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
$So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 1%* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Page 4 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
6. Any and all correspondence or written communications from the
Defendant (and its agents and representatives) to any non-parties, which in any manner
pertains to the Plaintiff's loss as described in the Complaint.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 1S* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
Page 5 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
T. Any and all photographs (the jpegs or actual digital images downloaded
from the digital camera with all original metadata intact), videos, drawings, or sketches
of the subject property taken or prepared by or on behalf of the Defendant or its agents
or representatives.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15 DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
8. All documents containing information regarding a statement by the Plaintiff
at any time during the Defendant’s handling of the Plaintiffs loss, including adjuster
notes, claim reports, interoffice memorandum, tape recordings, and any transcripts or
written statements from the Insured.
Page 6 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 18 DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
9. Any and all bills, estimates for repairs to the subject property, or any other
documents submitted by Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's representatives to the Defendant or
its agents and/or representatives for the subject claim.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
$So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
Page 7 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
10. Any and all statements whether written, oral or recorded, taken of non-
parties in regard to the subject matter of this litigation.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
$So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Page 8 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
11. Any and all statements, whether written, oral or recorded, taken of the
Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs agents, servants, employees, employees, etc., in regard to the
subject matter of this litigation.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
$So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
Page 9 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
12. Any and all estimates of damage prepared by Defendant and/or its
agents/representatives regarding the subject claim by the Plaintiff.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
Page 10 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
13. Any and all reports and/or other documents prepared by any expert
retained in this matter on behalf of Defendant, including but not limited to any such
documents upon which Defendant relied as a basis for payment and/or denial of the
subject claim/loss or in exercising its right to repair.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 1S* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
14. A copy of any and all reports by any general contractor, engineer, roofer,
electrician, plumber, leak detector, or other company/person retained by Defendant to
examine and/or evaluate any aspect of the Plaintiff's claim.
Page 11 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
15. Copies of any and all drafts/checks issued for payment of any aspect of
the Plaintiffs claim made by Defendant to anyone having performed any work on
Plaintiff's property for this claim/loss.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
$So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
Page 12 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
16. All notations regarding Defendant's receipts of notice of the loss identified
in the Complaint including assignment of claim, computer print-out of notice, first notice
of loss report, report from agent of loss, or correspondence from the Plaintiff, named
insured, and/or Plaintiffs’ representative(s).
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
$So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Page 13 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
17. All correspondence to or from anyone, including any insurance agencies
or any agencies hired as adjusters, to investigate the claim herein.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 18* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
Page 14 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
18. Copies of each bill or estimate for repair to the dwelling submitted to you
by anyone.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
Page 15 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
19. Copies of any and all documents which Defendant relies on in determining
and concluding that the Plaintiff is not entitled to all benefits sought under the subject
policy for Plaintiff's claim.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged
documents that may be responsive to this request are produced.
Page 16 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
20. All inter-office memoranda or other form of written communication of any
employee of the Insurance Company relating to the continued processing of the
insurance claim made prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding
Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as
being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and
thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
21. | The underwriting file pertaining to the subject risk and the insurance policy
to the present time, including but not limited to the file folder or file folders themselves,
exhibit folder, all papers, documents and investigative reports directly pertaining to the
insurance policy, including but not limited to inter-office memoranda or those pertaining
to the above-mentioned insurance policy or any and all written communications or
statements made between the Insurance Company and other parties, which directly
pertain to the insurance policy.
RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly
broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request
Page 17 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831
to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of
privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or
confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being
protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
$So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials
and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa
v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection []
extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in
anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including
employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See
Privilege Log for details.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does
not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in
the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12
So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order
compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims
handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in
a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information
regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the
Complaint alleges breach of cont
Preview
Filing # 147601340 E-Filed 04/13/2022 10:46:35 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 50-2021-CA-007831 LONNIE TOWNSEND, Plaintiff, Vv. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION COMES NOW, the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to Plaintiffs’, LONNIE TOWNSEND, (“Plaintiff”), First Request for Production: 1. A true and correct certified copy of any insurance policy provided by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the subject property, for which this lawsuit is premised, including but not limited to, declaration sheet(s), all addendums and attachments. Please include the sworn statement of coverage pages signed by a corporate officer attesting to the coverage and authenticity of the policies. RESPONSE: Attached. 2. A copy of all applications of insurance (including initial and renewal) submitted by and/or on behalf of the Plaintiff for insurance coverage at the subject property. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request '** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 04/13/2022 10:46:35 AM ***CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 $So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. Each and every timesheet, log, and all other documents reflecting time spent by the Defendant (and its agents and representatives) at the subject property after notification of the subject loss. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 $So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15 DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including Page 2 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Each and every document evidencing the name, address, and the position/relationship with the Defendant, of every individual who has visited or plans to visit the Property on behalf of the Defendant. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 $So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims Page 3 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 5. Any and all correspondence or written communications from the Defendant (and its agents and representatives) to the Plaintiff, which in any manner pertains to the Plaintiff's loss as described in the Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 $So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 1%* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Page 4 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 6. Any and all correspondence or written communications from the Defendant (and its agents and representatives) to any non-parties, which in any manner pertains to the Plaintiff's loss as described in the Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 1S* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. Page 5 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 T. Any and all photographs (the jpegs or actual digital images downloaded from the digital camera with all original metadata intact), videos, drawings, or sketches of the subject property taken or prepared by or on behalf of the Defendant or its agents or representatives. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15 DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 8. All documents containing information regarding a statement by the Plaintiff at any time during the Defendant’s handling of the Plaintiffs loss, including adjuster notes, claim reports, interoffice memorandum, tape recordings, and any transcripts or written statements from the Insured. Page 6 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 18 DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 9. Any and all bills, estimates for repairs to the subject property, or any other documents submitted by Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's representatives to the Defendant or its agents and/or representatives for the subject claim. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 $So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials Page 7 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 10. Any and all statements whether written, oral or recorded, taken of non- parties in regard to the subject matter of this litigation. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 $So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Page 8 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 11. Any and all statements, whether written, oral or recorded, taken of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs agents, servants, employees, employees, etc., in regard to the subject matter of this litigation. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 $So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims Page 9 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 12. Any and all estimates of damage prepared by Defendant and/or its agents/representatives regarding the subject claim by the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and Page 10 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 13. Any and all reports and/or other documents prepared by any expert retained in this matter on behalf of Defendant, including but not limited to any such documents upon which Defendant relied as a basis for payment and/or denial of the subject claim/loss or in exercising its right to repair. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 1S* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14. A copy of any and all reports by any general contractor, engineer, roofer, electrician, plumber, leak detector, or other company/person retained by Defendant to examine and/or evaluate any aspect of the Plaintiff's claim. Page 11 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 15. Copies of any and all drafts/checks issued for payment of any aspect of the Plaintiffs claim made by Defendant to anyone having performed any work on Plaintiff's property for this claim/loss. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 $So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] Page 12 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 16. All notations regarding Defendant's receipts of notice of the loss identified in the Complaint including assignment of claim, computer print-out of notice, first notice of loss report, report from agent of loss, or correspondence from the Plaintiff, named insured, and/or Plaintiffs’ representative(s). RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 $So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Page 13 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 17. All correspondence to or from anyone, including any insurance agencies or any agencies hired as adjusters, to investigate the claim herein. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 18* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in Page 14 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 18. Copies of each bill or estimate for repair to the dwelling submitted to you by anyone. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and Page 15 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. 19. Copies of any and all documents which Defendant relies on in determining and concluding that the Plaintiff is not entitled to all benefits sought under the subject policy for Plaintiff's claim. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, all non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request are produced. Page 16 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 20. All inter-office memoranda or other form of written communication of any employee of the Insurance Company relating to the continued processing of the insurance claim made prior to the filing of the lawsuit. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of contract, not bad faith. Therefore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks discovery of information regarding Defendant’s “claims handling,” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being outside the scope of permissible discovery under Florida law and thus irrelevant to issues presented in this case, and therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 21. | The underwriting file pertaining to the subject risk and the insurance policy to the present time, including but not limited to the file folder or file folders themselves, exhibit folder, all papers, documents and investigative reports directly pertaining to the insurance policy, including but not limited to inter-office memoranda or those pertaining to the above-mentioned insurance policy or any and all written communications or statements made between the Insurance Company and other parties, which directly pertain to the insurance policy. RESPONSE: Objection to the extent that this request is vague, overly broad, burdensome, and work product. Defendant objects to this request Page 17 of 26CASE NO.: 50-2021-CA-007831 to the extent it seeks and/or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of privileged information regarding Defendant’s internal investigation and/or confidential decision-making process of Plaintiff's instant claim as being protected work product. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 $So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding insurer’s investigative materials and internal findings were work product); Heartland Express, Inc. of lowa v. Torres, 90 So.3d 365 (Fla. 15* DCA 2012) (“Work-product protection [] extends to information gathered in an investigation conducted in anticipation of litigation by corporate nonattorney employees, including employees of a corporation’s risk management department.”). See Privilege Log for details. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of information relating to Defendant’s “claims handling,” as the law does not permit discovery of an insurance carrier’s claims handling practices in the absence of a ripe claim for bad faith. See, Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order compelling the insurer to produce materials regarding insurer’s claims handling as these items were irrelevant and/or privileged work product in a coverage dispute); GEICO v. Rodriguez, 960 So.2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quashing discovery order requiring disclosure of information regarding insurer’s claims handling in a coverage action). Here, the Complaint alleges breach of cont