Legal Document: STEVENS, THOMAS vs. EDISON INSURANCE COMPAN

On June 25, 1986 a was filed involving a dispute between Stevens, Laura, Stevens, Thomas, and Edison Insurance Compan, for Contracts in the District Court of Charlotte County.

Preview
Filing # 174751582 E-Filed 06/06/2023 07:29:41 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION

THOMAS STEVENS and
LAURA STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

VS. CASE NO.: 2023-CA-001611

EDISON INSURANCE
COMPANY,

Defendant.
/

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION

Defendant, EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350 and by

and through the undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff's Request for Production to the

Defendant as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1 Defendant, EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, objects to the Request to the

extent that it may require the production of documents protected from disclosure/discovery by

the attorney-client privilegepursuant to section 90.502, Florida Statutes.

2. Defendant, EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, objects to Plaintiffs Request to

the extent they may require the disclosure of any experts retained or specially employed by

Defendant in anticipationof litigation or preparation for trial and who are not expected to be

called as a witness at trial. Plaintiffs have made no showing of exceptional circumstances under

which it is impracticable forthem to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other

means and therefore are not entitledto discovery regarding such experts, pursuant to Rule

1.280(b)(4)(B), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Page 1 of 13
3 Defendant, EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, objects to the Request to the

extent that it may require the production of documents protected from disclosure/discovery by

the work product doctrine pursuant to Rule 1.280(b)(3) and (4), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

This objection specifically includes claims materials produced by EDISON INSURANCE

COMPANY in its analysis of the Plaintiffs claim(s) or other work product produced in

anticipation of litigation. Work product is defined in Rule 1.280, Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure, as"... documents and tangible things... prepared in anticipation of litigation." The

key factor in determining whether a document is considered workproduct is whether the

documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation. It is not necessary that the documents

be prepared for imminent or ongoing litigation. See Anchor Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz,

546 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Florida Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy, 471 So.2d 203

(Fla. 2d DCA 1985). As the Second District Court of Appeal observed in Anchor National,

"even preliminary investigative materials are privileged if compiled in response to some event

which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim." Anchor Nat'l, 546 So. 2d at 761. See also

National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Florida Constr., Commerce & Indus. Self Insurers Fund, 720 So.

2d 535 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1998). Absent a showing of a need and an inability to

otherwise obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship, Plaintiffs are not entitled

to the requested discovery. See e.g. Winn-Dixie Stores v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th

DCA 1983). Finally, it is clear that claim files which contain the personal thoughts of EDISON

INSURANCE COMPANY's employees regarding evaluation of the claim and possible settlement

are protected from disclosure, and the work product doctrine clearly was designed to protect

matters such as these from discovery. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Croft, 432 So.2d 196 (Fla. Ist

1983); see also US. Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Oaks Banks, 421 So.2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA

Page 2 of 13
1982) and Sliger v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).

4 Defendant, EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, objects to the Request to the

extent that it seeks information relating to its claims handling procedures and underwriting

analysis, other than information expressly relevant to the allegations in this dispute. The

general claims handling procedures and underwriting analysis of the Defendant, EDISON

INSURANCE COMPANY, do not relate to any claim or defense raised in the pleadings of the

pending action, are not relevant to the pending action, and are not calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. These matters are beyond the scope of discovery as set forth

in Rule 1.280(b)(1) and therefore are not discoverable.See e.g. State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v.

Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389,390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding claim files, investigative reports,

adjuster notes, underwriting files are not discoverable in a sinkhole coverage dispute); State

Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding, per curiam, that

insurer's claim files, manuals, guidelines, and documents concerning its claim handling

procedures are irrelevant to first party coverage disputes and therefore are not discoverable);

Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So.3d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (a trial court departs

from the essential requirements of the law in compelling disclosure of the contents of an

insurer's claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved); and

Home Assur. Co. v. Vreeland, 973 So.2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (requiring disclosure of

claim file materials during the litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm

that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal).

5 Defendant, EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, will produce documents in its

possession, custody, or control; however, EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY objects to the

Request to the extent that it may be construed to require the gathering of documents not in the

Page 3 of 13
possession of EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY or in the possession of any engineer or

consultant.

6 The word usage and sentence structure of these objections and responses are

thoseof the attorneys who prepared them and are not necessarily the exact language of any

EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY representative.

7 The Defendant, EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, will serve a privilege log

in compliance with Rule 1.280(b)(5), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS

A true and correct certified copy of the insurance policy issued described in the complaint,
including all declaration sheet(s), addendums and attachments.

See attached certified copy of the Edison Insurance Company Policy.

A true and correct copy of any and all statements, whether written, oral or recorded, in
whatever fashion, taken of the Plaintiff, and/or their agents, servants, employees, etc. in
regard to the subject matter of this litigation.

OBJECTION. Overbroad. Vague. Unduly burdensome. This request may include
items prepared in anticipation of litigation, which items are work-product and
protected from disclosure by the work-product doctrine. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(4).
Without waiving objection, Defendant provided Plaintiff with statement of loss on
November 7, 2022.

A true and correct copy of any and all statements, whether written, oral or recorded in
whatever fashion, taken of all independent witnesses or other persons by the Defendant
with regard to the subject matter of this lawsuit.

A list and/or other document showing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any
and all witnesses whose statements have been taken, indicating their full legal name,
resident addresses and telephone numbers in regard to the subject matter of this litigation
and any statement of those witnesses.

Page 4 of 13
OBJECTION. Overbroad. Vague. Unduly burdensome. This request may include
items prepared in anticipation of litigation, which items are work-product and
protected from disclosure by the work-product doctrine. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(4).
Without waiving, none.

Any and all memoranda, notes, correspondence and any and all other documents or tangible
things which, in any way, show or support to show any communications between the
Defendant, and the Defendant’s servants and/or employees on the one hand, and the
Plaintiff, their agents, servants, employees, and/or attorneys on the other hand concerning
the subject matter of this litigation.

OBJECTION. Overbroad. Vague. Unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to this
Request for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the General Objections,
above, and on the basis this request is overly broad, burdensome, irrelevant, not
limited to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence, and seeks disclosure of claims handling or claims
administration information, which is not discoverable in a first party breach of
contract action.

Without waiving said objection, see all non-privileged documents attached, including,
correspondence to insured dated October 3, 2022 regarding notice of loss; Email to
insured dated October 4, 2022 regarding claim received; correspondence to Mike
Martin Ins. Agency dated October 3, 2022 regarding notice of loss; Email to/from
insured dated October 5, 2022 regarding photos in possession but do not know how
to transfer, traveling, and scheduled inspection; Email to insured dated October 11,
2022 re request information on loss and damage; Email to insured dated November
7, 2022 regarding claim status; correspondence to insured dated November 7, 2022
regarding coverage determination, itemized estimate and payment; Email from Mike
Martin Ins. Agent dated November 15, 2022 regarding contact insured about claim,
agency unaware of claim; Email to/from insured dated November 15, 2022 regarding
fraud awareness; correspondence from Triton dated November 16, 2022 regarding
letter of representation and request for policy; Email/correspondence from Triton
dated November 16, 2022 regarding contract and W-9; Email/correspondence to
Triton dated November 30, 2022 providing policy information; Email from Triton
dated December 26, 2022 regarding request for tarping roof; Email to Triton dated
December 28, 2022 regarding vendor tarping; Email from Triton dated January 12,
2023 regarding estimate and reinspection; Email from Triton dated January 19, 2023
regarding letter of representation and estimate and request re-inspection; Email from
Triton dated January 19, 2023 regarding W-9; Email from Triton dated February 2,
2023 re Triton estimate w photos and need to repair and re-inspect property;
correspondence to insured/counsel dated March 10, 2023 regarding notice to litigate
and rejection of pre-suit demand with offer of settlement; Email to counsel dated
March 10, 2023 re response to notice of intent to litigate. Further see Defendant’s
Privilege Log.

Page 5 of 13
6. Each and every document, evidencing the name, address, and the position/relationship with
the Insurance Company, of every individual who has visited or plans to visit the Property
on behalfof the Insurance Company.

OBJECTION. Overbroad. Vague. Unduly burdensome, speculative. Defendant
objects to this Request for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the
General Objections, above, and on the basis this request is overly broad, burdensome,
irrelevant, not limited to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks disclosure of claims handling or
claims administration information, which is not discoverable in a first party breach
of contract action.

Any and all correspondence or written communications from the Insurance Company to
the Insured, which in any manner pertain to the Insured’s loss as described in the
Complaint.

Page 6 of 13
and seeks disclosure of claims handling or claims administration information, which
is not discoverable in a first party breach of contract action.

Without waiving said objections, see Defendant’s Privilege Log, and response to
request for production #6.

Any and all correspondence or written communications from the Insured, to the Insurance
Company which in any manner pertains to the Insured’s loss as described in the Complaint.

Without waiving said objections, see Defendant’s Privilege Log, and response to
request for production #6.

Any and all photographs taken by the Insurance Company of the Property.

OBJECTION. Defendant objects to this Request for the reasons set forth in
paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the General Objections, above, and on the basis this request
is overly broad, burdensome, irrelevant, not limited to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks
disclosure of claims handling or claims administration information, which is not
discoverable in a first party breach of contract action.

Without waiving said objections, see attached sixty (60) photographs of the subject
property taken by Robb Rodgers of Peak Claims Group, Inc. (Redacted as to
Photograph Description). Defendant also refers Plaintiffs to the Defendant's Privilege
Log attached herein.

10. Any and all photographs within the possession, custody and control of the Defendant, their
agents or employees, taken at any time and that depicts the Property. As grounds for this
paragraph, the Plaintiff would state that they cannot, without undue hardship, obtain a
substantial equivalent of these photographs.

Page 7 of 13
Without waiving said objections, see attached sixty (60) photographs of the subject
property taken by Robb Rodgers of Peak Claims Group, Inc. (Redacted as to
Photograph Description). Defendant also refers Plaintiffs to the Defendant's Privilege
Log attached herein.

11 All documents containing information regarding a statement by the Insured at any time
during the Insurance Company’s handling of the Insured’s loss, including adjuster notes,
claim reports, interoffice memorandum, tape recordings and any transcripts or written
statements from the Insured.

OBJECTION. This request may include items prepared in anticipation of litigation,
which items are work-product and protected from disclosure by the work-product
doctrine. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(4). Without waiving objection, Defendant provided
Plaintiff with statement of loss on November 7, 2022.

12 The entire claim file in this matter, including any table of contents or summaries thereof,
excluding documents which encompass the attorney/client privilege and/or work product
doctrine. [Any and all documents excluded, please list documents with sufficient
particularity such that the Court can conduct an in-camera inspection of same.]

OBJECTION. This request is overbroad and vague. Defendant further objects to the
extent that this request seeks information that is protected by the work-product
and/or attorney-client privileges. Further, the claim file in this matter is privileged.
When the issue of insurance coverage is unresolved, a trial court must not order an
insurer to produce its claims files and other work product documents. See State Farm
Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wheeland, 648 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995); see also State Farm
Fire Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995) (quashing order
compelling discovery of insurer's claims files, internal claims documents, and work
product when coverage was at issue). In addition to the privilege, the contents of the
claims file are irrelevant to the question of whether the policy obligates the insurer to
indemnify the insured for some particular loss or liability. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v.
Cc ‘amara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, 813 So.2d 250 (Fla.
3rd DCA 2002).

Subject to and without waiving same, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the Defendant's
Privilege Log attached herein.

13. The entire underwriting file pertaining to the Property.

Page 8 of 13
compelling discovery of insurer's claims files, internal claims documents, and work
product when coverage was at issue). In addition to the privilege, the contents of the
claims file are irrelevant to the question of whether the policy obligates the insurer to
indemnify the insured for some particular loss or liability. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v.
Cc ‘amara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, 813 So.2d 250 (Fla.
3rd DCA 2002).

Subject to and without waiving same, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the Defendant's
Privilege Log attached herein.

14. Any homeowner’s applications, supplemental applications, 4-Point inspection reports and
photographs, uniform mitigation verification inspection forms and photographs, and other
similar property inspection reports pertaining to the Property.

Without waiving said objection, see Defendant’s Privilege Log.

1S All correspondence between the Insurance Company and any insurance agent or broker or
underwriter related to the insurance involved herein.

16. Copies of any and all documents by and between the Insurance Company and its
investigators, insurance adjusters and appraisers relating to the subject matter of the
Insured’s Complaint which was not prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Page 9 of 13
17. Any and all expert reports, including but not limited to reports regarding cause and origin,
estimates for repair and/or replacement, damage to the Insured’s Property, mold and/or
mildew and/or any other subject matter concerning this litigation prepared by any experts
who will be utilized at the time of trial on behalfof the Defendant.

OBJECTION. Defendant objects to this Request for the reasons set forth in
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the General Objections, above, and on the basis this
request is overly broad, burdensome, irrelevant, not limited to the Plaintiffs’
Complaint, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
and seeks disclosure of claims handling or claims administration information, which
is not discoverable in a first party breach of contract action. Additionally, this request
may include items prepared in anticipation of litigation, which items are work-
product and protected from disclosure by the work-product doctrine. Fla.R.Civ.P.
1.280(b)(4). Without waiving, Defendant has not determined which if any experts it
will call at trial. Defendant will produce all required information regarding testifying
experts in accordance with a trial order from this Court.

18 A copy, at the Plaintiff(s) expense, of any photographs, videotape or film in the possession
of the Defendant, its agents, employees or attorneys, which depict the Insured’s Property
or the scene or area where the alleged incident occurred.

Without waiving said objection, see attached non-privileged documents produced
herein, and Defendant’s privilege log.

19. Any and all diagrams or sketches depicting the scene or area where the alleged incident
occurred.

Without waiving said objection, see attached non-privileged documents produced
herein, and Defendant’s privilege log.

20. Copy of any reports relating to any issue in this lawsuit which have been prepared by
experts that you intend to call as witnesses in this cause.

Page 10 of 13
OBJECTION. Defendant objects to this Request for the reasons set forth in
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the General Objections, above, and on the basis this
request is overly broad, burdensome, irrelevant, not limited to the Plaintiffs’
Complaint, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
and seeks disclosure of claims handling or claims administration information, which
is not discoverable in a first party breach of contract action. Additionally, this request
may include items prepared in anticipation of litigation, which items are work-
product and protected from disclosure by the work-product doctrine. Fla.R.Civ.P.
1.280(b)(4). Without waiving, Defendant has not determined which if any experts it
will call at trial. Defendant will produce all required information regarding testifying
experts in accordance with a trial order from this Court.

21 Copies of any and all photographs, recordings, charts, graphs, sketches, and any other
tangible items or documentary evidence which you intend to use during the trial of this
cause and which have not been produced in response to any of the preceding paragraphs of
this Request for Production.

22. A copy of any and all reports by any professional engineer, general contractor, plumber,
electrician, roofer or other construction industry person hired by the Defendant to examine
and/or evaluate any of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff.

Page 11 of 13
experts in accordance with a trial order from this Court. Further, see sixty (60)
photographs taken by Robb Rodgers of Peak Claims Group, Inc.

23 Copies of any and all correspondence to the Plaintiff from the Defendant relative to any of
the claims asserted by the Plaintiff.

24. Any and all documentation of any kind or nature, including photographs and/or evidence
of any kind or nature to support the payment made by the Defendant for the subject loss.

Without waiving said objections, Defendant provided Plaintiffs an itemized estimate
and statement of loss on November 7, 2022, see attached correspondence wherein the
Defendant issued a check in the amount of $338.69 for Coverage A Dwelling and
$6,712.32 for the Screened Enclosure Coverage. Further, see sixty (60) photographs
taken by Robb Rodgers of Peak Claims Group, Inc.

25 Any and all bills or estimates for repairs to the Property submitted to the Insurance
Company by the Insured.

26. Any and all checks paid to, or on behalf
of the Insured, representing insurance
coverage payment(s) for the loss.

OBJECTION. Defendant objects to this Request for the reasons set forth in
paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the General Objections, above, and on the basis this request

Page 12 of 13
is overly broad, burdensome, irrelevant, not limited to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks
disclosure of claims handling or claims administration information, which is not
discoverable in a first party breach of contract action.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to through
the Florida E-Filing Portal to Peter Diamond, Esquire, YOUR INSURANCE ATTORNEY, 2601
South Bayshore Drive, Sth Floor, Coconut Grove, Florida 33133,
YIA24@yourinsuranceattorney.com, eservice@yourinsuranceattorey.com, Attorney for
Plaintiffs, this 6" day of June 2023.

/s/ Nina M. Hanson
Nina M. Hanson, Esquire
Florida Bar No: 998893
Adam C. Shelton, Esquire
Florida Bar No: 0572578
SHELTON | MCKEAN
9700 9" Street North, Suite 400
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Phone No.: (727) 316-6330
Fax No.: (727) 316-6368
service-ashelton@sheltonmckean.com
service-nhanson@sheltonmckean.com
ckrajcik@sheltonmckean.com
Attorney for Defendant

Page 13 of 13

Case Info

Judge

GENTILE, GEOFFREY H Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 13, 2023

Case Filing Date

June 25, 1986

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for STEVENS, THOMAS vs. EDISON INSURANCE COMPAN

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties