Preview
Filing # 113200932 E-Filed 09/11/2020 09:20:25 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1|4th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BAY
COUNTY, FLORIDA
CHRISTOPHER CUMMINGS, as attorney
in fact for MURIEL CUMMINGS, GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
Plaintiffs, CASE NO.: 19003062-CA
vs.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
COMES NOW, Defendant, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY (hereinafter Universal Property”) by and through the undersigned counsel, and
pursuant to Rule 1.280(c) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure files this Motion for Protective
Order as to the Deposition of Defendant’s Corporate Representative noticed for September 28,
2020 and in support thereof states as follows:
1. On or about August 21, 2020, Defendant was served with a Notice of Taking Deposition
Duces Tecum for the deposition of Universal Property and Casualty Insurance
Company’s Corporate Representative.
2. The deposition of the Corporate Representative was noticed for September 28, 2020
beginning at 10:00 AM.
3. This notice provides a list of areas of inquiry Plaintiffs allege are applicable regarding the
deposition of this Corporate Representative, as follows:
1. The Corporate Representative who can identify by full name and company title
all those persons who participated in making the decision by or on behalf of
Defendant determining the value of Plaintiffs’ claim, to pay Plaintiff's claim.
2. The Corporate Representative with the most knowledge of Defendant’s
investigation, adjustment, and valuation of the insured’s claim.3. The Corporate Representative most knowledgeable about the factual basis and
all policy language upon which the denial letter is based.
4. The Corporate Representative who can identify and explain any and all
decisions made on behalf of Defendant with regard to the adjustment,
investigation, and payment or failure to pay the insured’s claim.
5. The Corporate Representative who can testify regarding the date Defendant
reasonably anticipated litigation with Plaintiff for the subject claim and all
circumstances which gave rise to the Defendant’s reasonable expectation or belief
that litigation would ensure, result, or arise regarding the insured’s claim at issue
in this lawsuit.
6. The Corporate Representative who can identify and explain Defendant’s
responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests and all facts and policy language which
support Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests.
7. The Corporate Representative with facts that form basis of affirmative
defenses.
8. Copy of any and all estimates of repair, statements, or appraisals concerning
the nature and extent or damage to the Plaintiff’s home.
9. Any and all statements of Plaintiff in the possession, custody or control of the
Defendant.
4. In addition, the Notice of Taking Deposition also requires that Defendant produce
at the time of the deposition the following documents:
1. Any and all insurance documents which Defendant relies on and in determining
and concluding that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any benefits for Plaintiffs
claim.
2. Copies of any and all documents and/or written memos of any kind which
Defendant mailed to or provided to Plaintiff or Plaintiffs agent.
3. Any and all maintenance records, photos, statement or recordings taken of
Plaintiff's and of any other witness(es) and all photos concerning this claim.
4. Any and all documents, manuals, or other written material which speaks of the
procedures that may/or should be followed by Defendant in processing and/or
handling a claim similar to one made by Plaintiff as described in the Plaintiff’s
complaint.
5. Any and all documents including relied on by Defendant in concluding or
determining that Plaintiff's claim should be denied in full or in part.
6. A copy of Plaintiff's complete contract, policy of insurance, all endorsements,
declaration page, and application and binders.
7. Any and all written documents and correspondence by and between Plaintiff
and Defendant.
8. Copy of any and all estimates of repair, statements, or appraisals concerning
the nature and extent or damage to the Plaintiff's home.
9. Any and all statements of Plaintiff in the possession, custody or control of the
Defendant.5. The majority of the scope of the proposed deposition, as well as the majority of
the documents requested be produced are wholly improper and non-discoverable. This Notice of
Taking Deposition indicates that the Plaintiffs seek to inquire into claims handling information
that is protected from disclosure in a first party action. Furthermore, the Notice is subject to
objection as the documents sought are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client
privilege pursuant to §90.502, Florida Statutes and the work product doctrine pursuant to Rule
1.280(b)(4) and 1.280(b)(5) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
6. Defendant objects to the Notice 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 procedure and
underwriting analysis of Defendant, do not relate to any claim or defense raised in the pleadings
of the pending action, is 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) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore are not discoverable.
7. As such, Defendant opposes the Notice of Taking Deposition to the extent that
same requires that the deponent to produce claims handling information.
8. It is a long-standing principle of Florida law that “the contents of a claims file are
irrelevant to the question of whether the policy obligates the insurer to defend or indemnify the
insured for some particular loss or liability.” See, Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Valido,
662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3° DCA 1995).
9. Claim handling information and documents are irrelevant to this action and not
discoverable in a first party breach of contract action as a matter of law. It is well settled that an
insurer’s claim file is not relevant to a first party breach of contract action where coverage is atissue as a matter of law. Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, No. 3D13-1758, 2013 WL 5737372,
at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 23, 2013); Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA
2009)(“discovery which concerns only potential issues of bad faith or other purported
improprieties in defending [a] claim are wholly impermissible unless and until it is determined
that the policy indeed provides coverage.”); see also State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So.
3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) “[W]here the issue of coverage is still unresolved at the time of the
insurer’s objection to the request for discovery of its claim file, the trial court departs from the
essential requirements of law in overruling the insurer’s objection.”); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v.
Camara de Comercio Latino-Americana de los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2002) citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wheeland, 648 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
(holding that in a bad faith action, when the issue of coverage has not been determined, it is a
departure from the essential requirements of the law to order disclosure of the insurer's claims
file and the insurer's claims handling manuals and materials); American Home Assurance
Company v. Vreeland, 973 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); American Reliance Ins. Co. v.
Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass’n, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quashing order compelling
discovery of insurer's claims files, internal claims documents, and work product when coverage
was at issue); Utica Mut. Ins. Co. vs. Croft, 432 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Ist DCA 1983); State Farm v.
Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (materials requested were work product or
irrelevant); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swain, 921 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
vy. Farm, Inc., 754 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that a discovery order in a bad faith
action requiring disclosure of the insurer's business practices was premature without a
determination of the coverage issue); GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 927 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA2006) ("[w]hen a litigant files claims for both coverage and bad faith in the same action, the
insurer's claim file is not discoverable until the issue of coverage has been resolved."); Allstate
Ins. Co. v. Lovell, 530 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (discovery of an insurer's files was
impermissible prior to the establishment of coverage in a first-party bad faith action); Superior
Ins. Co. v. Holden, 642 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that trial court departed from
the essential requirements of law when entered an order compelling disclosure of insurer’s
claims file where the issue of insurer’s obligation to provide coverage has not yet been
determined); Rodriguez v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 960 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
(holding that trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in ordering
production of documents relating to insurer’s claims handling practices and procedures where
obligation to provide coverage has yet to be determined); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that until the obligation to provide
coverage and damages has been determined, a party is not entitled to discovery related to the
claims filed or to the insurer's business policies or practices regarding handling of
claims); Maryland Cas. Co. v. Alicia Diagnostic, Inc., 961 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. Sth DCA 2007);
Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding an order
“requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the litigation of coverage issues would
result in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal”).
10. The Court has held that when the issue of insurance coverage is unresolved and at
issue in pending court proceedings, a trial court must not order an insurer to produce its claims
files and other work product documents. See Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Camara de
Comercio Latino-Americana de los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002);
Florida Residential Property and Casualty Join Underwriters Association v. Sanchez, 693 So. 2d68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); American Reliance Insurance Company v. Rosemont Condominium
Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Utica Mutual Insurance Company vs.
Croft, 432 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1° DCA 1983).
11. Accordingly, a Corporate Representative may testify, but cannot be compelled to
testify as to claim handling/privilege matters until the question of coverage is resolved. See
Scottsdale, supra, at 251 and Vreeland, supra, at 6. Defendant is therefore willing to produce the
Corporate Representative for deposition as to her factual knowledge to the extent that such
matters are discernible from her review of the claims file and her personal involvement in the
handling of the Plaintiff's claim.
12. Accordingly, Defendant will not permit the witness to answer any questions that
are not relevant i.e. involve claims-handling practices and/or questions which pertain to the claim
file. As set forth above, because no determination has been made as to liability, an action for bad
faith is premature as a matter of law and the Plaintiff may not employ discovery in this forum to
obtain information to support a future potential bad-faith action. Plaintiff is not entitled to utilize
the discovery process for a “mere fishing expedition” or get general inquisitorial examination of
Defendant and its papers with a view to ascertaining whether something of value may or may not
show up. See Scottsdale, supra, at 251, citing McCarty v. Estate of Schultz, 372 So. 2d 210, 212
(Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
13. Additionally, Defendant will not permit the witness to answer any questions
regarding interpretation of the policy language. The construction of an insurance policy is a
question of law to be determined by the court. See Allstate Insurance Company v. Swain, 921 So.
2d 717, 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) citing Jones v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, 463 So. 2d1153, 1157 (Fla. 1985) and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Castrillo, 829 So. 2d 242,
244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); see also United States Fire Insurance Company v. Meridian of Palm
Beach Condominium Association, Inc., 700 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that
expert opinions could not be relied upon in interpreting insurance policy language where policy
contained no ambiguities).
14. Further, the documents Plaintiff requires the witness to produce at the deposition
are protected from disclosure by the work product privilege and are subject to the
corporate records confidentiality provision set forth in Florida Statute §627.351(6)(x)l. The
documents in Defendant’s claim file were prepared in anticipation of litigation. It is well
established that Defendant may not be required to produce or disclose the work product of its
investigation, except in unusual circumstances constituting compelling necessity for the
discovery in order to reach the merits of the cause. See Scottsdale, supra, at 252; Valido, supra,
at 1013.
15. Florida courts have held that “even preliminary investigative materials are
privileged if compiled in response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a
claim.” The Court held: “we note that materials such as these may qualify as work product even
if, as here, no specific litigation was pending at the time the materials were compiled.” See
Anchor Mut. Fin. Serv., Inc. u. Smeltz, 546 So.2d 760, 761 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1989); See also Waste
Management, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 571 So.2d 507, 509-510 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1990);
Florida Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy, 471 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Winn-Dixie
Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So.2d 100
(Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So.2d 146
(Fla.1972).16. Fla. Rule Civ. P. 1.280(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to limit or
prohibit discovery in order to protect a party from undue burden or expense. Ramussen v. South
Florida Blood Service, Inc., 500 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla. 1987).
17. Accordingly, an order limiting the scope of the deposition of Universal Property
and Casualty Insurance Corporate Representative and the documents sought by Plaintiff should
be entered in accordance with applicable law.
18. This Motion is not done for the purpose of delay or for any other improper
purpose.
19. The undersigned certifies that a bona fide attempt has been made or will be made
prior to hearing on the subject motion to resolve the issues set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion for Protective
Order to limit the scope of the Corporate Representative’s deposition and documents requested
to only those areas of inquiry that are relevant and do not intrude on claim handling and/or
protected work product and granting such further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.
[END OF DOCUMENT. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON NEXT PAGE.]|CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 11th day of September, 2020, a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document was electronically filed in compliance with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516
using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal which will send an electronic notice of filing and service
copy via email to: Jose I Carrillo, Gimenez & Carrilo, LLC, 5775 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 300,
Miami, Florida 33126, service@gimenezandcarrillo.com, Attorneys for Attorney for Plaintiff.
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA.
Attorneys for Defendant
4190 Belfort Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32216
Tel: (904)354-5500
‘Bijal M. Patel
Bijal M. Patel (FBN: 1008105)
Bijal_patel@qpwblaw.com
Jonathan M. Diocares (FBN: 96327
jonathan. diocares@qpwblaw.com
JOSE E. BOSCH (FBN: 542431)
jbosch@gpwblaw.com
Designated Email Addresses for Service of
Pleadings & Court Documents only:
Primary Email: Bijal.patel@qpwblaw.com
Secondary Email: jbosch.pleadings@qpwblaw.com
mvicente@qpwblaw.com
callie.adams@qpwblaw.com
Preview
Filing # 113200932 E-Filed 09/11/2020 09:20:25 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1|4th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA CHRISTOPHER CUMMINGS, as attorney in fact for MURIEL CUMMINGS, GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION Plaintiffs, CASE NO.: 19003062-CA vs. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER COMES NOW, Defendant, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter Universal Property”) by and through the undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 1.280(c) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure files this Motion for Protective Order as to the Deposition of Defendant’s Corporate Representative noticed for September 28, 2020 and in support thereof states as follows: 1. On or about August 21, 2020, Defendant was served with a Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum for the deposition of Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s Corporate Representative. 2. The deposition of the Corporate Representative was noticed for September 28, 2020 beginning at 10:00 AM. 3. This notice provides a list of areas of inquiry Plaintiffs allege are applicable regarding the deposition of this Corporate Representative, as follows: 1. The Corporate Representative who can identify by full name and company title all those persons who participated in making the decision by or on behalf of Defendant determining the value of Plaintiffs’ claim, to pay Plaintiff's claim. 2. The Corporate Representative with the most knowledge of Defendant’s investigation, adjustment, and valuation of the insured’s claim.3. The Corporate Representative most knowledgeable about the factual basis and all policy language upon which the denial letter is based. 4. The Corporate Representative who can identify and explain any and all decisions made on behalf of Defendant with regard to the adjustment, investigation, and payment or failure to pay the insured’s claim. 5. The Corporate Representative who can testify regarding the date Defendant reasonably anticipated litigation with Plaintiff for the subject claim and all circumstances which gave rise to the Defendant’s reasonable expectation or belief that litigation would ensure, result, or arise regarding the insured’s claim at issue in this lawsuit. 6. The Corporate Representative who can identify and explain Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests and all facts and policy language which support Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. 7. The Corporate Representative with facts that form basis of affirmative defenses. 8. Copy of any and all estimates of repair, statements, or appraisals concerning the nature and extent or damage to the Plaintiff’s home. 9. Any and all statements of Plaintiff in the possession, custody or control of the Defendant. 4. In addition, the Notice of Taking Deposition also requires that Defendant produce at the time of the deposition the following documents: 1. Any and all insurance documents which Defendant relies on and in determining and concluding that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any benefits for Plaintiffs claim. 2. Copies of any and all documents and/or written memos of any kind which Defendant mailed to or provided to Plaintiff or Plaintiffs agent. 3. Any and all maintenance records, photos, statement or recordings taken of Plaintiff's and of any other witness(es) and all photos concerning this claim. 4. Any and all documents, manuals, or other written material which speaks of the procedures that may/or should be followed by Defendant in processing and/or handling a claim similar to one made by Plaintiff as described in the Plaintiff’s complaint. 5. Any and all documents including relied on by Defendant in concluding or determining that Plaintiff's claim should be denied in full or in part. 6. A copy of Plaintiff's complete contract, policy of insurance, all endorsements, declaration page, and application and binders. 7. Any and all written documents and correspondence by and between Plaintiff and Defendant. 8. Copy of any and all estimates of repair, statements, or appraisals concerning the nature and extent or damage to the Plaintiff's home. 9. Any and all statements of Plaintiff in the possession, custody or control of the Defendant.5. The majority of the scope of the proposed deposition, as well as the majority of the documents requested be produced are wholly improper and non-discoverable. This Notice of Taking Deposition indicates that the Plaintiffs seek to inquire into claims handling information that is protected from disclosure in a first party action. Furthermore, the Notice is subject to objection as the documents sought are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege pursuant to §90.502, Florida Statutes and the work product doctrine pursuant to Rule 1.280(b)(4) and 1.280(b)(5) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Defendant objects to the Notice 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 procedure and underwriting analysis of Defendant, do not relate to any claim or defense raised in the pleadings of the pending action, is 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) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore are not discoverable. 7. As such, Defendant opposes the Notice of Taking Deposition to the extent that same requires that the deponent to produce claims handling information. 8. It is a long-standing principle of Florida law that “the contents of a claims file are irrelevant to the question of whether the policy obligates the insurer to defend or indemnify the insured for some particular loss or liability.” See, Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3° DCA 1995). 9. Claim handling information and documents are irrelevant to this action and not discoverable in a first party breach of contract action as a matter of law. It is well settled that an insurer’s claim file is not relevant to a first party breach of contract action where coverage is atissue as a matter of law. Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, No. 3D13-1758, 2013 WL 5737372, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 23, 2013); Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)(“discovery which concerns only potential issues of bad faith or other purported improprieties in defending [a] claim are wholly impermissible unless and until it is determined that the policy indeed provides coverage.”); see also State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) “[W]here the issue of coverage is still unresolved at the time of the insurer’s objection to the request for discovery of its claim file, the trial court departs from the essential requirements of law in overruling the insurer’s objection.”); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara de Comercio Latino-Americana de los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wheeland, 648 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that in a bad faith action, when the issue of coverage has not been determined, it is a departure from the essential requirements of the law to order disclosure of the insurer's claims file and the insurer's claims handling manuals and materials); American Home Assurance Company v. Vreeland, 973 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); American Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass’n, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quashing order compelling discovery of insurer's claims files, internal claims documents, and work product when coverage was at issue); Utica Mut. Ins. Co. vs. Croft, 432 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Ist DCA 1983); State Farm v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (materials requested were work product or irrelevant); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swain, 921 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. vy. Farm, Inc., 754 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that a discovery order in a bad faith action requiring disclosure of the insurer's business practices was premature without a determination of the coverage issue); GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 927 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA2006) ("[w]hen a litigant files claims for both coverage and bad faith in the same action, the insurer's claim file is not discoverable until the issue of coverage has been resolved."); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lovell, 530 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (discovery of an insurer's files was impermissible prior to the establishment of coverage in a first-party bad faith action); Superior Ins. Co. v. Holden, 642 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when entered an order compelling disclosure of insurer’s claims file where the issue of insurer’s obligation to provide coverage has not yet been determined); Rodriguez v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 960 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in ordering production of documents relating to insurer’s claims handling practices and procedures where obligation to provide coverage has yet to be determined); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that until the obligation to provide coverage and damages has been determined, a party is not entitled to discovery related to the claims filed or to the insurer's business policies or practices regarding handling of claims); Maryland Cas. Co. v. Alicia Diagnostic, Inc., 961 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. Sth DCA 2007); Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding an order “requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal”). 10. The Court has held that when the issue of insurance coverage is unresolved and at issue in pending court proceedings, a trial court must not order an insurer to produce its claims files and other work product documents. See Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Camara de Comercio Latino-Americana de los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Florida Residential Property and Casualty Join Underwriters Association v. Sanchez, 693 So. 2d68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); American Reliance Insurance Company v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Utica Mutual Insurance Company vs. Croft, 432 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1° DCA 1983). 11. Accordingly, a Corporate Representative may testify, but cannot be compelled to testify as to claim handling/privilege matters until the question of coverage is resolved. See Scottsdale, supra, at 251 and Vreeland, supra, at 6. Defendant is therefore willing to produce the Corporate Representative for deposition as to her factual knowledge to the extent that such matters are discernible from her review of the claims file and her personal involvement in the handling of the Plaintiff's claim. 12. Accordingly, Defendant will not permit the witness to answer any questions that are not relevant i.e. involve claims-handling practices and/or questions which pertain to the claim file. As set forth above, because no determination has been made as to liability, an action for bad faith is premature as a matter of law and the Plaintiff may not employ discovery in this forum to obtain information to support a future potential bad-faith action. Plaintiff is not entitled to utilize the discovery process for a “mere fishing expedition” or get general inquisitorial examination of Defendant and its papers with a view to ascertaining whether something of value may or may not show up. See Scottsdale, supra, at 251, citing McCarty v. Estate of Schultz, 372 So. 2d 210, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). 13. Additionally, Defendant will not permit the witness to answer any questions regarding interpretation of the policy language. The construction of an insurance policy is a question of law to be determined by the court. See Allstate Insurance Company v. Swain, 921 So. 2d 717, 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) citing Jones v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, 463 So. 2d1153, 1157 (Fla. 1985) and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Castrillo, 829 So. 2d 242, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); see also United States Fire Insurance Company v. Meridian of Palm Beach Condominium Association, Inc., 700 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that expert opinions could not be relied upon in interpreting insurance policy language where policy contained no ambiguities). 14. Further, the documents Plaintiff requires the witness to produce at the deposition are protected from disclosure by the work product privilege and are subject to the corporate records confidentiality provision set forth in Florida Statute §627.351(6)(x)l. The documents in Defendant’s claim file were prepared in anticipation of litigation. It is well established that Defendant may not be required to produce or disclose the work product of its investigation, except in unusual circumstances constituting compelling necessity for the discovery in order to reach the merits of the cause. See Scottsdale, supra, at 252; Valido, supra, at 1013. 15. Florida courts have held that “even preliminary investigative materials are privileged if compiled in response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim.” The Court held: “we note that materials such as these may qualify as work product even if, as here, no specific litigation was pending at the time the materials were compiled.” See Anchor Mut. Fin. Serv., Inc. u. Smeltz, 546 So.2d 760, 761 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1989); See also Waste Management, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 571 So.2d 507, 509-510 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1990); Florida Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy, 471 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So.2d 146 (Fla.1972).16. Fla. Rule Civ. P. 1.280(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to limit or prohibit discovery in order to protect a party from undue burden or expense. Ramussen v. South Florida Blood Service, Inc., 500 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla. 1987). 17. Accordingly, an order limiting the scope of the deposition of Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Corporate Representative and the documents sought by Plaintiff should be entered in accordance with applicable law. 18. This Motion is not done for the purpose of delay or for any other improper purpose. 19. The undersigned certifies that a bona fide attempt has been made or will be made prior to hearing on the subject motion to resolve the issues set forth herein. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion for Protective Order to limit the scope of the Corporate Representative’s deposition and documents requested to only those areas of inquiry that are relevant and do not intrude on claim handling and/or protected work product and granting such further relief that this Court may deem just and proper. [END OF DOCUMENT. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON NEXT PAGE.]|CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 11th day of September, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was electronically filed in compliance with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516 using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal which will send an electronic notice of filing and service copy via email to: Jose I Carrillo, Gimenez & Carrilo, LLC, 5775 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 300, Miami, Florida 33126, service@gimenezandcarrillo.com, Attorneys for Attorney for Plaintiff. QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA. Attorneys for Defendant 4190 Belfort Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32216 Tel: (904)354-5500 ‘Bijal M. Patel Bijal M. Patel (FBN: 1008105) Bijal_patel@qpwblaw.com Jonathan M. Diocares (FBN: 96327 jonathan. diocares@qpwblaw.com JOSE E. BOSCH (FBN: 542431) jbosch@gpwblaw.com Designated Email Addresses for Service of Pleadings & Court Documents only: Primary Email: Bijal.patel@qpwblaw.com Secondary Email: jbosch.pleadings@qpwblaw.com mvicente@qpwblaw.com callie.adams@qpwblaw.com