Preview
Filing # 52152797 E-Filed 02/07/2017 11:32:39 AM
101.0468
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CASE NO: CACE-16-022783 (12)
BORIS MILAN and KAREN KROBOTH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
SPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
COMES NOW, the Defendant, OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY (“OLYMPUS”),
by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby files this, its Response to Request for
Production, and responds as follows to the consecutively numbered Requests:
L. The original and/or a true and correct certified copy of the insurance policy
described in the Complaint including declaration page and all addendums, if any.
Response: Attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
2. All correspondence or written communications from Defendant to Plaintiff
regarding the subject loss alleged in the Complaint.
Response: See documents produced in response to Request number 8, below.
3. Any and all written estimates of repairs created by and/or on behalf of the
Defendant regarding any and all damages to the subject premises allegedly occurring as result of
the subject loss.
Response: Objection. This request is vague, overbroad, lacks a relevant time
period and is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible at trial and/or
material to the issues in this cause. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that an
insurance company’s handling and investigation of a claim, and the claims file
thereby created, are not discoverable in a first party coverage action. See Allstate
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 2/7/2017 11:32:39 AM.****CASE NO: CACE-16-022783 (12)
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. y. Gallmon,
835 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So.3d 982
(Fla. 2nd DCA 2011). Moreover, some of the information sought is protected as
work product and subject to Florida’s attorney-client and consulting expert
privileges. See Defendant’s Privilege Log.
Without waiving these objections, to the extent that this request seeks non-
privileged documents related to the claim that is the subject of this litigation, see
documents produced in response to Request number 8, below.
4, Copies of all checks issued by Defendant and payable to or on behalf of Plaintiff
representing insurance proceeds for the subject loss alleged in the Complaint.
Response: Forthcoming.
5. Copies of Plaintiff's recorded statement(s) taken by Defendant or their agents
regarding the subject loss alleged in the Complaint.
Response: None.
6. Copies of Plaintiffs Examination Under Oath Transcript(s) regarding the subject
loss alleged in Complaint.
Response: None.
7. All delivery receipts, written proof of mailing and all other records evidencing in
any manner the date and/or dates that the entire policy of insurance described in the
complaint/Complaint was mailed or delivered to Plaintiff.
Response: Objection. This Request is vague, overbroad, lacks a relevant time
period and is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible in and/or
material to this cause.
8. Any and all field notes and/or all other documentation of any sort relating to any
investigation undertaken with regard to the Plaintiff's claim prior to Defendant’s reasonably
anticipated litigation.
2CASE NO: CACE-16-022783 (12)
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Response: Objection. This request is vague, overbroad, lacks a relevant time
period and is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible at trial and/or
material to the issues in this cause. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that an
insurance company’s handling and investigation of a claim, and the claims file
thereby created, are not discoverable in a first party coverage action. See Allstate
Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon,
835 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So.3d 982
(Fla. 2nd DCA 2011). Moreover, some of the information sought is protected as
work product and subject to Florida’s attorney-client and consulting expert
privileges. See Defendant’s Privilege Log.
Without waiving these objections, to the extent that this request seeks non-
privileged documents related to the claim that is the subject of this litigation, see
documents attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
9. Any and all photographs, video, diagrams, or other documentation depicting the
subject loss and/or relating to the Plaintiff's subject property.
Response: Objection. This request is vague, overbroad, lacks a relevant time
period and is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible at trial and/or
material to the issues in this cause. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that an
insurance company’s handling and investigation of a claim, and the claims file
thereby created, are not discoverable in a first party coverage action. See Allstate
Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon,
835 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662
So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So.3d 982
(Fla. 2nd DCA 2011). Moreover, some of the information sought is protected as
work product and subject to Florida’s attorney-client and consulting expert
privileges. See Defendant’s Privilege Log.
Without waiving these objections, to the extent that this request seeks non-
privileged documents related to the claim that is the subject of this litigation, see
documents produced in response to Request number 8, above.
10. The underwriting file relating to the Plaintiff's subject property.
Response: Objection. This Request is vague, overbroad, lacks a relevant time
period and is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible in and/or
material to this cause.CASE NO: CACE-16-022783 (12)
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been furnished to: Jack Benmeleh,
Esquire, Militzok & Levy, P.A., The Yankee Clipper Law Center, 3230 Strirling Road, Suite 1,
Hollywood, FL 33021, via e-Service through the Florida Courts e-filing Portal, on this 7" day of
February, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
GUTTERMAN TRIAL GROUP
Attorneys for OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY
200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1630
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: 754.218.8255
Facsimile: 754.218.8259
Primary Eservice: eservice@guttermangroup.com
By: /s/ Robert L. Newman
Marc J. Gutterman, Esquire
Florida Bar No.: 118818
Secondary Eservice: mgutterman@guttermangroup.com
Robert L. Newman, Esquire
Florida Bar No.: 111676
Secondary Eservice: rmewman@guttermangroup.com
Preview
Filing # 52152797 E-Filed 02/07/2017 11:32:39 AM 101.0468 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO: CACE-16-022783 (12) BORIS MILAN and KAREN KROBOTH, Plaintiffs, v. OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / SPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION COMES NOW, the Defendant, OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY (“OLYMPUS”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby files this, its Response to Request for Production, and responds as follows to the consecutively numbered Requests: L. The original and/or a true and correct certified copy of the insurance policy described in the Complaint including declaration page and all addendums, if any. Response: Attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 2. All correspondence or written communications from Defendant to Plaintiff regarding the subject loss alleged in the Complaint. Response: See documents produced in response to Request number 8, below. 3. Any and all written estimates of repairs created by and/or on behalf of the Defendant regarding any and all damages to the subject premises allegedly occurring as result of the subject loss. Response: Objection. This request is vague, overbroad, lacks a relevant time period and is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible at trial and/or material to the issues in this cause. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that an insurance company’s handling and investigation of a claim, and the claims file thereby created, are not discoverable in a first party coverage action. See Allstate *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 2/7/2017 11:32:39 AM.****CASE NO: CACE-16-022783 (12) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. y. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So.3d 982 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2011). Moreover, some of the information sought is protected as work product and subject to Florida’s attorney-client and consulting expert privileges. See Defendant’s Privilege Log. Without waiving these objections, to the extent that this request seeks non- privileged documents related to the claim that is the subject of this litigation, see documents produced in response to Request number 8, below. 4, Copies of all checks issued by Defendant and payable to or on behalf of Plaintiff representing insurance proceeds for the subject loss alleged in the Complaint. Response: Forthcoming. 5. Copies of Plaintiff's recorded statement(s) taken by Defendant or their agents regarding the subject loss alleged in the Complaint. Response: None. 6. Copies of Plaintiffs Examination Under Oath Transcript(s) regarding the subject loss alleged in Complaint. Response: None. 7. All delivery receipts, written proof of mailing and all other records evidencing in any manner the date and/or dates that the entire policy of insurance described in the complaint/Complaint was mailed or delivered to Plaintiff. Response: Objection. This Request is vague, overbroad, lacks a relevant time period and is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible in and/or material to this cause. 8. Any and all field notes and/or all other documentation of any sort relating to any investigation undertaken with regard to the Plaintiff's claim prior to Defendant’s reasonably anticipated litigation. 2CASE NO: CACE-16-022783 (12) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Response: Objection. This request is vague, overbroad, lacks a relevant time period and is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible at trial and/or material to the issues in this cause. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that an insurance company’s handling and investigation of a claim, and the claims file thereby created, are not discoverable in a first party coverage action. See Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So.3d 982 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2011). Moreover, some of the information sought is protected as work product and subject to Florida’s attorney-client and consulting expert privileges. See Defendant’s Privilege Log. Without waiving these objections, to the extent that this request seeks non- privileged documents related to the claim that is the subject of this litigation, see documents attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 9. Any and all photographs, video, diagrams, or other documentation depicting the subject loss and/or relating to the Plaintiff's subject property. Response: Objection. This request is vague, overbroad, lacks a relevant time period and is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible at trial and/or material to the issues in this cause. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that an insurance company’s handling and investigation of a claim, and the claims file thereby created, are not discoverable in a first party coverage action. See Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So.3d 982 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2011). Moreover, some of the information sought is protected as work product and subject to Florida’s attorney-client and consulting expert privileges. See Defendant’s Privilege Log. Without waiving these objections, to the extent that this request seeks non- privileged documents related to the claim that is the subject of this litigation, see documents produced in response to Request number 8, above. 10. The underwriting file relating to the Plaintiff's subject property. Response: Objection. This Request is vague, overbroad, lacks a relevant time period and is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible in and/or material to this cause.CASE NO: CACE-16-022783 (12) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been furnished to: Jack Benmeleh, Esquire, Militzok & Levy, P.A., The Yankee Clipper Law Center, 3230 Strirling Road, Suite 1, Hollywood, FL 33021, via e-Service through the Florida Courts e-filing Portal, on this 7" day of February, 2017. Respectfully submitted, GUTTERMAN TRIAL GROUP Attorneys for OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1630 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: 754.218.8255 Facsimile: 754.218.8259 Primary Eservice: eservice@guttermangroup.com By: /s/ Robert L. Newman Marc J. Gutterman, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 118818 Secondary Eservice: mgutterman@guttermangroup.com Robert L. Newman, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 111676 Secondary Eservice: rmewman@guttermangroup.com