Preview
Filing # 93147606 E-Filed 07/25/2019 11:46:12 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
LOUIS CHARLES,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO.: CACE-19-011697
AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE
COMPANY OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
COMES NOW, the Defendant, American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida
(hereinafter “American Integrity” or “Defendant”) by and through its undersigned counsel, and
hereby responds to the correspondingly numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff's First Request for
Production as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. American Integrity objects to all Definitions set forth in Plaintiff's First Request for
Production as over broad burdensome, oppressive and an improper attempt to impose
discovery obligations on American Integrity beyond those established by the Florida Rules
of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Rules of this Court.
2. American Integrity objects to Plaintiff's First Request for Production to the extent that they
seek documents and information not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
3. American Integrity objects to the Plaintiff's First Request for Production to the extent they
seek documents and information not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4. American Integrity objects to Plaintiff's First Request for Production to the extent they
seek documents or information that constitutes the work-product of American Integrity's
attorneys or other representatives and reflect the mental impressions, conclusions,
opinions, or legal theories of American Integrity's attorneys or their representatives.
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 07/25/2019 11:46:12 AM.****5. American Integrity has not completed its discovery or investigation of this matter.
Accordingly, documents and information are provided without prejudice to American
Integrity's rights to make further objections and present additional information and
documents which are hereafter discovered or which further discovery and investigation
may indicate are relevant to this action and called for by the Plaintiff.
6. American Integrity reserves the right to object as to the competency, relevancy, materiality
and admissibility of the information disclosed pursuant to Plaintiffs First Request for
Production.
7. These general objections are applicable to each and every one of the following responses
and objections, and failure to repeat an objection in response to the specific request shall
not be deemed a waiver of these general objections.
8. American Integrity objects to each and every request to the extent they call for information
protected by the Constitution of the State of Florida and any applicable statutes, including
but not limited to, the right of privacy.
9. Inadvertent production of privileged information by American Integrity shall not constitute
waiver or any applicable privilege or doctrine, including but not limited to, objection on
the basis of competency, confidentiality, relevancy, materiality, privilege and/or
admissibility of evidence, as such objections may apply at trial or otherwise in this action.
Without waiving these objections, American Integrity responds to Plaintiff’s First Request
for Production in compliance with the procedures specified in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
and construes the First Request for Production as written without reference to the definitions and
instructions, using American Integrity's understanding of the ordinary meaning of the terms and
phrases in the Plaintiff's Request for Production.
PRELIMINARY STATE!
These responses are made solely for the purpose of this litigation. These responses
represent this responding party's diligent and best efforts to respond to written discovery based on
the investigations which this responding party has thus far been able to carry out in connection
with the facts relevant to this litigation. There may exist further information responsive to the
discovery that is not within this responding party's present knowledge or reasonably available to
this party.
There may also exist documents relating to the subject matter of written discovery which
this responding party has not yet located, identified or reviewed, despite its best efforts to do so.
There may exist persons with knowledge relating to the subject matter of written discovery
of whom this responding party is not presently aware of or of whom this responding party has not
yet conducted interviews. Accordingly, these responses are based upon the facts and information
now known to this responding party as well as its present analysis of this litigation, and does notconstitute an admission or representation that additional facts, documents or witnesses having
knowledge relevant to the subject matter of discovery does not exist.
As this litigation proceeds, this responding party anticipates other facts, documents, or
witnesses may be discovered or identified by it. This responding party reserves the right to alter,
supplement, amend or otherwise modify these answers, as appropriate, in any way at any time.
Except for the explicit facts stated herein, no incidental admissions are intended hereby.
The fact that American Integrity responded to any of the requests is not an admission that is accepts
or admits the existence of facts set forth or assumed by any request or that such response is
constituted admissible evidence. The fact that American Integrity answered all or part of any
request is not intended and should not be construed to be a waiver of all or any part of any
objections to the request.
The term "Property" shall refer to the property located at 419 SW 80" Avenue, North
Lauderdale, Florida 33068.
The term "Policy" shall refer to American Integrity Policy No. AIH235256, with the policy
period from March 25, 2018 to March 25, 2019.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
1. A true and correct copy of all Declarations pages and the full and complete
insurance policy(s) referenced in the Plaintiff's Complaint and a sworn statement of a corporate
officer of Defendant attesting to the coverage and authenticity of the policy.
RESPONSE: See attached.
2. A copy of any and all other Declarations pages and insurance policy(s) which may
provide coverage to Plaintiff for the damages claimed in Plaintiff s Complaint.
RESPONSE: None.3. A copy of each and every document (defined above) which you reasonably
anticipate may be introduced into evidence at the trial of this matter.
RESPONSE: Objection; overbroad, vague, not limited in time and scope, and premature.
Defendant has not determined all evidence it will present at trial as this is the First
Request for Production and the lawsuit was just answered to. Defendant objects to
the extent this request seeks information not discoverable from consulting experts
and/or experts not yet identified as likely to testify at trial under the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. Discovery and investigation are ongoing and Defendant will disclose
its expert witnesses and documentary evidence at the appropriate time in compliance
with an order entered by the Court.
4. A copy of any and all documents which you allege may support any affirmative
defense which you have raised in this matter.
RESPONSE: All non-privileged documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control at
this time responsive to this request, are attached.
To the extent responsive documentation was not produced, Defendant objects based
on irrelevance, improper “bad faith” discovery of claim file material, work-product
privilege, and attorney-client privilege, and cites to the following Florida case-law in
support:
(1) Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los
Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“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”);
(2) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing that
“discovery request [for]-internal procedural memos, claims manuals, and
standards for proper investigation of claims-do, as the district court noted,
appear irrelevant”);
(3) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2nd DCA
2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer's claim file,
investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies
and manuals, training materials, and other internal information as not
relevant and protected as work product in first party breach of contract
action contesting insurer's determination of amount insurer was willing to
pay for damage to home);(4)
6)
(6)
(7)
(8)
0)
(10)
(1)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, v. Valido, 662 So, 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd DCA
1995) (holding that homeowners insurer's claim files, manuals, guidelines
and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant
to first party dispute over insurer's refusal to pay hurricane claim under
policy, and therefore did not have to be produced and insurer's
surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were
protected by work product privilege);
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
(“where 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....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);
Cent. Fla. Skates v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
(“Holding that underwriting file “contains information which is either
irrelevant to the respondent's action or privileged and which is therefore
not discoverable”);
Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (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”);
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA
2008) (Trial court's order requiring insurer to produce claim file and
underwriting file where issues of liability and damages had not been
determined constituted a departure from essential requirements of law
resulting in irreparable harm);
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA
2011) (where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks
relief for breach of contract, 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);
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“Until
the right of coverage is first established, a plaintiff claiming to be an
insured cannot compel disclosure of the insurer's work product and
privileged matters in its claims file.”);
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding
well taken the insurer's argument that Florida law “prohibits insureds(12)
(13)
(14)
(1s)
(16)
a7)
(18)
from obtaining discovery into an insurer's claims files and claims handling
materials until contract/coverage litigation has been concluded”);
American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA
1998) (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);
Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Work-
product protection extends to information gathered in anticipation of
litigation by corporate non-attorney employees, including employees of a
corporation's risk management department. Internal investigative reports
are also covered by the rule. A lawsuit need not be filed for information
gathered in an accident investigation to qualify for work-product
protection”);
Heartland Express, Inc., of Iowa v. Torres, 90 So. 3d 365, 367-368 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2012) (holding that documents created by investigators and
employees of a risk management department are protected from
disclosure);
Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Clearly any
documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators are now
protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore, the Tromps cannot
obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly by merely labeling the
contents of the investigators' reports as ‘observations.’ The investigators’
‘observations’ are the equivalent of any documents or reports they may
have generated in the course of their investigations and are discoverable
only under the conditions in rule 1.280(b)(3));
Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1984) (if an expert has been hired to conduct an investigation in
anticipation of litigation, his reports and memoranda constitute materials
compiled in preparation for trial and he cannot be required to reveal the
findings relevant to his investigation, absent proof of the adverse party's
need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship);
See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding that
an investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the
work-product of his or her investigations);
Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1981) (explaining that an investigator employed by a party cannot
properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents of
any communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the incidentor his investigation thereof, absent proof of the adverse party's need and
inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship);
(19) Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L. Weekly
D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) (holding that an insurer was not
required to produce claim file in discovery in breach of contract action
brought by property owners against insurer, in which property owners
alleged that payments made on their claim were inadequate; law
prohibiting the disclosure of “claims file” material encompassed items such
as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and property loss
notice forms, which were all specific to the handling of an individual
claim);
(20) Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, 671 So. 2d
250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that, in a first party property coverage
dispute, deposition questions posed to a party regarding adjuster's
conversations that occurred and work performed during initial
investigation, as well as the adjuster's analysis of a bid, and notes
concerning the analysis constituted work product intertwined with matters
irrelevant to first party coverage dispute).
5. A copy of any and all documents which you allege may support any Motion to
Dismiss which you have filed in this matter.
RESPONSE: Objection. This claim was not denied and the Insured was fully compensated
for the loss.
6. Copies of any and all statements and any transcripts for the same which have been
reduced to writing and/or transcribed, from any person who has knowledge of the facts in this
matter and/or evaluated the damages or claim, including any expert witness, engineer, contractor,
person, entity, and/or the Defendant (defined above) herein.
RESPONSE: No recorded statements were taken of the insured.7. Copies of any and all recorded statement(s) and telephone conversations, as well as
any transcripts including but not limited to Examinations Under Oath, which were taken of or
provided by Plaintiff which are in your possession, custody or control.
RESPONSE: No recorded statements were taken of the insured.
8. Copies of any and all recorded statement(s) and telephone conversations, as well as
any transcripts for the same which has been reduced to writing and/or transcribed, including but
not limited to Examinations Under Oath, which were taken of or provided by Plaintiff or his/her
representatives (defined above) which are in your possession, custody or control.
RESPONSE: There are no recorded statements.
9. Copies of any and all recorded statement(s) and telephone conversations, as well as
any transcripts for the same which has been reduced to writing and/or transcribed, which were
taken of or provided by any witness to the loss and/or work performed or to be performed by
Plaintiff which are in your possession, custody or control.
RESPONSE: There are no recorded statements.
10. Each and every document, report, chart, graph, object, summary, compilation of
data or other thing relied upon by any of your experts, in whole or in part, in the formulation of
any opinions and conclusion in this case.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, vague, and
seeks disclosure of information that is irrelevant and not discoverable in this first-
party breach of contract claim. Pursuant to Florida law, the requested
documents/information are protected from disclosure pursuant to the work product
doctrine and attorney-client privilege.The Defendant’s objections are supported by Florida law, including the following
doctrine:
(1) ~—- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino—Americana De Los
Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“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”);
(2) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing
that “discovery request [for]-internal procedural memos, claims
manuals, and standards for proper investigation of claims-do, as the
district court noted, appear irrelevant”);
(3) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2nd DCA
2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer's claim file,
investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company
policies and manuals, training materials, and other internal
information as not relevant and protected as work product in first
party breach of contract action contesting insurer's determination of
amount insurer was willing to pay for damage to home);
(4) State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, v. Valido, 662 So, 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd
DCA 1995) (holding that homeowners insurer's claim files, manuals,
guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures
were irrelevant to first party dispute over insurer's refusal to pay
hurricane claim under policy, and therefore did not have to be
produced and insurer's surveillance photographs, witness statements
and repair estimates were protected by work product privilege);
(5) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA
2012) (“where 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....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);
(6) Cent. Fla. Skates v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
(“Holding that underwriting file “contains information which is either
irrelevant to the respondent's action or privileged and which is
therefore not discoverable”);
(7) Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (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”);(8)
()
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2008) (Trial court's order requiring insurer to produce claim file
and underwriting file where issues of liability and damages had not
been determined constituted a departure from essential requirements
of law resulting in irreparable harm);
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2011) (where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but
rather seeks relief for breach of contract, 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);
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
(“Until the right of coverage is first established, a plaintiff claiming to
be an insured cannot compel disclosure of the insurer's work product
and privileged matters in its claims file.”);
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
(finding well taken the insurer's argument that Florida law “prohibits
insureds from obtaining discovery into an insurer's claims files and
claims handling materials until contract/coverage litigation has been
concluded”);
American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1998) (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);
Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
(“Work-product protection extends to information gathered in
anticipation of litigation by corporate non-attorney employees,
including employees of a corporation's risk management department.
Internal investigative reports are also covered by the rule. A lawsuit
need not be filed for information gathered in an accident investigation
to qualify for work-product protection”);
Heartland Express, Inc., of Iowa v. Torres, 90 So. 3d 365, 367-368 (Fla.
1st DCA 2012) (holding that documents created by investigators and
employees of a risk management department are protected from
disclosure);
Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Clearly
any documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators
are now protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore,
the Tromps cannot obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly(16)
a7
(18)
(19)
(20)
by merely labeling the contents of the investigators' reports as
‘observations.’ The investigators' ‘observations’ are the equivalent of
any documents or reports they may have generated in the course of
their investigations and are discoverable only under the conditions in
rule 1.280(b)(3));
Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So.2d 900 (Fla.
2d DCA 1984) (if an expert has been hired to conduct an investigation
in anticipation of litigation, his reports and memoranda constitute
materials compiled in preparation for trial and he cannot be required
to reveal the findings relevant to his investigation, absent proof of the
adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without
undue hardship);
See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding
that an investigator employed by a party may not be required to
produce the work-product of his or her investigations);
Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1981) (explaining that an investigator employed by a party cannot
properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents
of any communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the
incident or his investigation thereof, absent proof of the adverse party's
need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship);
Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L.
Weekly D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) (holding that an insurer was
not required to produce claim file in discovery in breach of contract
action brought by property owners against insurer, in which property
owners alleged that payments made on their claim were inadequate;
law prohibiting the disclosure of “claims file” material encompassed
items such as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and
property loss notice forms, which were all specific to the handling of an
individual claim);
Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, 671 So.
2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that, in a first party property
coverage dispute, deposition questions posed to a party regarding
adjuster's conversations that occurred and work performed during
initial investigation, as well as the adjuster's analysis of a bid, and notes
concerning the analysis constituted work product intertwined with
matters irrelevant to first party coverage dispute).11. Copies of any photographs of Plaintiff's Property located at 419 SW 80th Ave.,
North Lauderdale, FL 33068 which are in your possession, custody or control.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, vague, and
seeks disclosure of information that is irrelevant and not discoverable in this first-
party breach of contract claim. Pursuant to Florida law, the requested
documents/information are protected from disclosure pursuant to the work product
doctrine and attorney-client privilege.
The Defendant’s objections are supported by Florida law, including the following
doctrine:
(1) ~—- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino—Americana De Los
Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“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”);
(2) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing
that “discovery request [for]-internal procedural memos, claims
manuals, and standards for proper investigation of claims-do, as the
district court noted, appear irrelevant”);
(3) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2nd DCA
2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer's claim file,
investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company
policies and manuals, training materials, and other internal
information as not relevant and protected as work product in first
party breach of contract action contesting insurer's determination of
amount insurer was willing to pay for damage to home);
(4) State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, v. Valido, 662 So, 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd
DCA 1995) (holding that homeowners insurer's claim files, manuals,
guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures
were irrelevant to first party dispute over insurer's refusal to pay
hurricane claim under policy, and therefore did not have to be
produced and insurer's surveillance photographs, witness statements
and repair estimates were protected by work product privilege);
(5) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA
2012) (“where 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....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);(6)
™
(8)
Q)
(10)
a
(12)
(13)
Cent. Fla. Skates v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
(“Holding that underwriting file “contains information which is either
irrelevant to the respondent's action or privileged and which is
therefore not discoverable”);
Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (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”);
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2008) (Trial court's order requiring insurer to produce claim file
and underwriting file where issues of liability and damages had not
been determined constituted a departure from essential requirements
of law resulting in irreparable harm);
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2011) (where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but
rather seeks relief for breach of contract, 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);
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
(“Until the right of coverage is first established, a plaintiff claiming to
be an insured cannot compel disclosure of the insurer's work product
and privileged matters in its claims file.”);
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
(finding well taken the insurer's argument that Florida law “prohibits
insureds from obtaining discovery into an insurer's claims files and
claims handling materials until contract/coverage litigation has been
concluded”);
American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1998) (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);
Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
(“Work-product protection extends to information gathered in
anticipation of litigation by corporate non-attorney employees,
including employees of a corporation's risk management department.
Internal investigative reports are also covered by the rule. A lawsuit
need not be filed for information gathered in an accident investigation
to qualify for work-product protection”);(4)
(15)
(16)
a7)
(18)
(19)
Heartland Express, Inc., of Iowa v. Torres, 90 So. 3d 365, 367-368 (Fla.
1st DCA 2012) (holding that documents created by investigators and
employees of a risk management department are protected from
disclosure);
Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Clearly
any documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators
are now protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore,
the Tromps cannot obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly
by merely labeling the contents of the investigators’ reports as
‘observations.’ The investigators' ‘observations’ are the equivalent of
any documents or reports they may have generated in the course of
their investigations and are discoverable only under the conditions in
rule 1.280(b)(3));
Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So.2d 900 (Fla.
2d DCA 1984) (if an expert has been hired to conduct an investigation
in anticipation of litigation, his reports and memoranda constitute
materials compiled in preparation for trial and he cannot be required
to reveal the findings relevant to his investigation, absent proof of the
adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without
undue hardship);
See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding
that an investigator employed by a party may not be required to
produce the work-product of his or her investigations);
Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1981) (explaining that an investigator employed by a party cannot
properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents
of any communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the
incident or his investigation thereof, absent proof of the adverse party's
need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship);
Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L.
Weekly D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) (holding that an insurer was
not required to produce claim file in discovery in breach of contract
action brought by property owners against insurer, in which property
owners alleged that payments made on their claim were inadequate;
law prohibiting the disclosure of “claims file” material encompassed
items such as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and
property loss notice forms, which were all specific to the handling of an
individual claim);
(20) Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, 671 So.
2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that, in a first party property
coverage dispute, deposition questions posed to a party regardingadjuster's conversations that occurred and work performed during
initial investigation, as well as the adjuster's analysis of a bid, and notes
concerning the analysis constituted work product intertwined with
matters irrelevant to first party coverage dispute).
12. Copies of any photographs which reflect any damage done at Plaintiff's Property
located at 419 SW 80th Ave., North Lauderdale, FL 33068 which are in your possession, custody
or control.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, vague, and
seeks disclosure of information that is irrelevant and not discoverable in this first-
party breach of contract claim. Pursuant to Florida law, the requested
documents/information are protected from disclosure pursuant to the work product
doctrine and attorney-client privilege.
The Defendant’s objections are supported by Florida law, including the following
doctrine:
(1) Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino—Americana De Los
Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“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”);
(2) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing that
“discovery request [for]-internal procedural memos, claims manuals, and
standards for proper investigation of claims-do, as the district court noted,
appear irrelevant”);
(3) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2nd DCA
2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer's claim file,
investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies
and manuals, training materials, and other internal information as not
relevant and protected as work product in first party breach of contract
action contesting insurer's determination of amount insurer was willing to
pay for damage to home);
(4) State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, v. Valido, 662 So, 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd DCA.
1995) (holding that homeowners insurer's claim files, manuals, guidelines
and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant
to first party dispute over insurer's refusal to pay hurricane claim under
policy, and therefore did not have to be produced and insurer's(3)
()
”
(8)
Y
ay
ay)
(12)
surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were
protected by work product privilege);
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
(“where 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....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);
Cent. Fla. Skates v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
(“Holding that underwriting file “contains information which is either
irrelevant to the respondent's action or privileged and which is therefore
not discoverable”);
Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (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”);
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA
2008) (Trial court's order requiring insurer to produce claim file and
underwriting file where issues of liability and damages had not been
determined constituted a departure from essential requirements of law
resulting in irreparable harm);
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA
2011) (where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks
relief for breach of contract, 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);
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“Until
the right of coverage is first established, a plaintiff claiming to be an
insured cannot compel disclosure of the insurer's work product and
privileged matters in its claims file.”);
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding
well taken the insurer's argument that Florida law “prohibits insureds
from obtaining discovery into an insurer's claims files and claims handling
materials until contract/coverage litigation has been concluded”);
American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA
1998) (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(13)
a4)
ds)
(16)
qd?)
law to order disclosure of the insurer's claims file and the insurer's claims
handling manuals and materials);
Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Work-
product protection extends to information gathered in anticipation of
litigation by corporate non-attorney employees, including employees of a
corporation's risk management department. Internal investigative reports
are also covered by the rule. A lawsuit need not be filed for information
gathered in an accident investigation to qualify for work-product
protection”);
Heartland Express, Inc., of Iowa v. Torres, 90 So. 3d 365, 367-368 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2012) (holding that documents created by investigators and
employees of a risk management department are protected from
disclosure);
Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Clearly any
documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators are now
protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore, the Tromps cannot
obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly by merely labeling the
contents of the investigators’ reports as ‘observations.’ The investigators’
‘observations’ are the equivalent of any documents or reports they may
have generated in the course of their investigations and are discoverable
only under the conditions in rule 1.280(b)(3));
Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1984) (if an expert has been hired to conduct an investigation in
anticipation of litigation, his reports and memoranda constitute materials
compiled in preparation for trial and he cannot be required to reveal the
findings relevant to his investigation, absent proof of the adverse party's
need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship);
See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding that
an investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the
work-product of his or her investigations);
(18) Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st
ay)
DCA 1981) (explaining that an investigator employed by a party cannot
properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents of
any communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the incident
or his investigation thereof, absent proof of the adverse party's need and
inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship);
Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L. Weekly
D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) (holding that an insurer was not
required to produce claim file in discovery in breach of contract action
brought by property owners against insurer, in which property ownersalleged that payments made on their claim were inadequate; law
prohibiting the disclosure of “claims file” material encompassed items such
as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and property loss
notice forms, which were all specific to the handling of an individual
claim);
(20) Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, 671 So. 2d
250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that, in a first party property coverage
dispute, deposition questions posed to a party regarding adjuster's
conversations that occurred and work performed during initial
investigation, as well as the adjuster's analysis of a bid, and notes
concerning the analysis constituted work product intertwined with matters
irrelevant to first party coverage dispute).
13. Copies of any photographs of any work performed by Plaintiff or his/her
representatives (defined above) at Plaintiff's Property located at 419 SW 80th Ave., North
Lauderdale, FL 33068 which are in your possession, custody or control.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, vague, and
seeks disclosure of information that is irrelevant and not discoverable in this first-
party breach of contract claim. Pursuant to Florida law, the requested
documents/information are protected from disclosure pursuant to the work product
doctrine and attorney-client privilege.
The Defendant’s objections are supported by Florida law, including the following
doctrine:
(1) Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino—Americana De Los
Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“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”);
(2) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing that
“discovery request [for]-internal procedural memos, claims manuals, and
standards for proper investigation of claims-do, as the district court noted,
appear irrelevant”);
(3) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2nd DCA
2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer's claim file,
investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies
and manuals, training materials, and other internal information as not4
()
()
”
(8)
~Y
relevant and protected as work product in first party breach of contract
action contesting insurer's determination of amount insurer was willing to
pay for damage to home);
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, v. Valido, 662 So, 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd DCA
1995) (holding that homeowners insurer's claim files, manuals, guidelines
and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant
to first party dispute over insurer's refusal to pay hurricane claim under
policy, and therefore did not have to be produced and insurer's
surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were
protected by work product privilege);
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So, 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
(“where 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....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);
Cent. Fla. Skates v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
(“Holding that underwriting file “contains information which is either
irrelevant to the respondent's action or privileged and which is therefore
not discoverable”);
Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (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”);
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA
2008) (Trial court's order requiring insurer to produce claim file and
underwriting file where issues of liability and damages had not been
determined constituted a departure from essential requirements of law
resulting in irreparable harm);
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA
2011) (where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks
relief for breach of contract, 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);
(10) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“Until
the right of coverage is first established, a plaintiff claiming to be an
insured cannot compel disclosure of the insurer's work product and
privileged matters in its claims file.”);ay)
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding
well taken the insurer's argument that Florida law “prohibits insureds
from obtaining discovery into an insurer's claims files and claims handling
materials until contract/coverage litigation has been concluded”);
(12) American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA
(13)
a4
(18)
(16)
a7
1998) (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);
Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Work-
product protection extends to information gathered in anticipation of
litigation by corporate non-attorney employees, including employees of a
corporation's risk management department. Internal investigative reports
are also covered by the rule. A lawsuit need not be filed for information
gathered in an accident investigation to qualify for work-product
protection”);
Heartland Express, Inc., of Iowa y. Torres, 90 So. 3d 365, 367-368 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2012) (holding that documents created by investigators and
employees of a risk management department are protected from
disclosure);
Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Clearly any
documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators are now
protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore, the Tromps cannot
obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly by merely labeling the
contents of the investigators' reports as ‘observations.’ The investigators’
‘observations’ are the equivalent of any documents or reports they may
have generated in the course of their investigations and are discoverable
only under the conditions in rule 1.280(b)(3));
Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1984) (if an expert has been hired to conduct an investigation in
anticipation of litigation, his reports and memoranda constitute materials
compiled in preparation for trial and he cannot be required to reveal the
findings relevant to his investigation, absent proof of the adverse party's
need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship);
See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding that
an investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the
work-product of his or her investigations);
(18) Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1981) (explaining that an investigator employed by a party cannot
properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents ofany communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the incident
or his investigation thereof, absent proof of the adverse party's need and
inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship);
(19) Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L. Weekly
D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) (holding that an insurer was not
required to produce claim file in discovery in breach of contract action
brought by property owners against insurer, in which property owners
alleged that payments made on their claim were inadequate; law
prohibiting the disclosure of “claims file” material encompassed items such
as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and property loss
notice forms, which were all specific to the handling of an individual
claim);
(20) Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, 671 So. 2d
250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that, in a first party property coverage
dispute, deposition questions posed to a party regarding adjuster's
conversations that occurred and work performed during initial
investigation, as well as the adjuster's analysis of a bid, and notes
concerning the analysis constituted work product intertwined with matters
irrelevant to first party coverage dispute).
14. Copies of any and all estimates and damage appraisals and other documents
(defined
Preview
Filing # 93147606 E-Filed 07/25/2019 11:46:12 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA LOUIS CHARLES, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO.: CACE-19-011697 AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION COMES NOW, the Defendant, American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida (hereinafter “American Integrity” or “Defendant”) by and through its undersigned counsel, and hereby responds to the correspondingly numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff's First Request for Production as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. American Integrity objects to all Definitions set forth in Plaintiff's First Request for Production as over broad burdensome, oppressive and an improper attempt to impose discovery obligations on American Integrity beyond those established by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Rules of this Court. 2. American Integrity objects to Plaintiff's First Request for Production to the extent that they seek documents and information not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. American Integrity objects to the Plaintiff's First Request for Production to the extent they seek documents and information not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. American Integrity objects to Plaintiff's First Request for Production to the extent they seek documents or information that constitutes the work-product of American Integrity's attorneys or other representatives and reflect the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of American Integrity's attorneys or their representatives. *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 07/25/2019 11:46:12 AM.****5. American Integrity has not completed its discovery or investigation of this matter. Accordingly, documents and information are provided without prejudice to American Integrity's rights to make further objections and present additional information and documents which are hereafter discovered or which further discovery and investigation may indicate are relevant to this action and called for by the Plaintiff. 6. American Integrity reserves the right to object as to the competency, relevancy, materiality and admissibility of the information disclosed pursuant to Plaintiffs First Request for Production. 7. These general objections are applicable to each and every one of the following responses and objections, and failure to repeat an objection in response to the specific request shall not be deemed a waiver of these general objections. 8. American Integrity objects to each and every request to the extent they call for information protected by the Constitution of the State of Florida and any applicable statutes, including but not limited to, the right of privacy. 9. Inadvertent production of privileged information by American Integrity shall not constitute waiver or any applicable privilege or doctrine, including but not limited to, objection on the basis of competency, confidentiality, relevancy, materiality, privilege and/or admissibility of evidence, as such objections may apply at trial or otherwise in this action. Without waiving these objections, American Integrity responds to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production in compliance with the procedures specified in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and construes the First Request for Production as written without reference to the definitions and instructions, using American Integrity's understanding of the ordinary meaning of the terms and phrases in the Plaintiff's Request for Production. PRELIMINARY STATE! These responses are made solely for the purpose of this litigation. These responses represent this responding party's diligent and best efforts to respond to written discovery based on the investigations which this responding party has thus far been able to carry out in connection with the facts relevant to this litigation. There may exist further information responsive to the discovery that is not within this responding party's present knowledge or reasonably available to this party. There may also exist documents relating to the subject matter of written discovery which this responding party has not yet located, identified or reviewed, despite its best efforts to do so. There may exist persons with knowledge relating to the subject matter of written discovery of whom this responding party is not presently aware of or of whom this responding party has not yet conducted interviews. Accordingly, these responses are based upon the facts and information now known to this responding party as well as its present analysis of this litigation, and does notconstitute an admission or representation that additional facts, documents or witnesses having knowledge relevant to the subject matter of discovery does not exist. As this litigation proceeds, this responding party anticipates other facts, documents, or witnesses may be discovered or identified by it. This responding party reserves the right to alter, supplement, amend or otherwise modify these answers, as appropriate, in any way at any time. Except for the explicit facts stated herein, no incidental admissions are intended hereby. The fact that American Integrity responded to any of the requests is not an admission that is accepts or admits the existence of facts set forth or assumed by any request or that such response is constituted admissible evidence. The fact that American Integrity answered all or part of any request is not intended and should not be construed to be a waiver of all or any part of any objections to the request. The term "Property" shall refer to the property located at 419 SW 80" Avenue, North Lauderdale, Florida 33068. The term "Policy" shall refer to American Integrity Policy No. AIH235256, with the policy period from March 25, 2018 to March 25, 2019. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1. A true and correct copy of all Declarations pages and the full and complete insurance policy(s) referenced in the Plaintiff's Complaint and a sworn statement of a corporate officer of Defendant attesting to the coverage and authenticity of the policy. RESPONSE: See attached. 2. A copy of any and all other Declarations pages and insurance policy(s) which may provide coverage to Plaintiff for the damages claimed in Plaintiff s Complaint. RESPONSE: None.3. A copy of each and every document (defined above) which you reasonably anticipate may be introduced into evidence at the trial of this matter. RESPONSE: Objection; overbroad, vague, not limited in time and scope, and premature. Defendant has not determined all evidence it will present at trial as this is the First Request for Production and the lawsuit was just answered to. Defendant objects to the extent this request seeks information not discoverable from consulting experts and/or experts not yet identified as likely to testify at trial under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery and investigation are ongoing and Defendant will disclose its expert witnesses and documentary evidence at the appropriate time in compliance with an order entered by the Court. 4. A copy of any and all documents which you allege may support any affirmative defense which you have raised in this matter. RESPONSE: All non-privileged documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control at this time responsive to this request, are attached. To the extent responsive documentation was not produced, Defendant objects based on irrelevance, improper “bad faith” discovery of claim file material, work-product privilege, and attorney-client privilege, and cites to the following Florida case-law in support: (1) Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“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”); (2) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing that “discovery request [for]-internal procedural memos, claims manuals, and standards for proper investigation of claims-do, as the district court noted, appear irrelevant”); (3) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer's claim file, investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies and manuals, training materials, and other internal information as not relevant and protected as work product in first party breach of contract action contesting insurer's determination of amount insurer was willing to pay for damage to home);(4) 6) (6) (7) (8) 0) (10) (1) State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, v. Valido, 662 So, 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995) (holding that homeowners insurer's claim files, manuals, guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant to first party dispute over insurer's refusal to pay hurricane claim under policy, and therefore did not have to be produced and insurer's surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were protected by work product privilege); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“where 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....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); Cent. Fla. Skates v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (“Holding that underwriting file “contains information which is either irrelevant to the respondent's action or privileged and which is therefore not discoverable”); Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (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”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Trial court's order requiring insurer to produce claim file and underwriting file where issues of liability and damages had not been determined constituted a departure from essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable harm); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of contract, 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); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“Until the right of coverage is first established, a plaintiff claiming to be an insured cannot compel disclosure of the insurer's work product and privileged matters in its claims file.”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding well taken the insurer's argument that Florida law “prohibits insureds(12) (13) (14) (1s) (16) a7) (18) from obtaining discovery into an insurer's claims files and claims handling materials until contract/coverage litigation has been concluded”); American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (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); Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Work- product protection extends to information gathered in anticipation of litigation by corporate non-attorney employees, including employees of a corporation's risk management department. Internal investigative reports are also covered by the rule. A lawsuit need not be filed for information gathered in an accident investigation to qualify for work-product protection”); Heartland Express, Inc., of Iowa v. Torres, 90 So. 3d 365, 367-368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that documents created by investigators and employees of a risk management department are protected from disclosure); Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Clearly any documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators are now protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore, the Tromps cannot obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly by merely labeling the contents of the investigators' reports as ‘observations.’ The investigators’ ‘observations’ are the equivalent of any documents or reports they may have generated in the course of their investigations and are discoverable only under the conditions in rule 1.280(b)(3)); Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (if an expert has been hired to conduct an investigation in anticipation of litigation, his reports and memoranda constitute materials compiled in preparation for trial and he cannot be required to reveal the findings relevant to his investigation, absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship); See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding that an investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the work-product of his or her investigations); Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (explaining that an investigator employed by a party cannot properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents of any communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the incidentor his investigation thereof, absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship); (19) Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) (holding that an insurer was not required to produce claim file in discovery in breach of contract action brought by property owners against insurer, in which property owners alleged that payments made on their claim were inadequate; law prohibiting the disclosure of “claims file” material encompassed items such as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and property loss notice forms, which were all specific to the handling of an individual claim); (20) Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that, in a first party property coverage dispute, deposition questions posed to a party regarding adjuster's conversations that occurred and work performed during initial investigation, as well as the adjuster's analysis of a bid, and notes concerning the analysis constituted work product intertwined with matters irrelevant to first party coverage dispute). 5. A copy of any and all documents which you allege may support any Motion to Dismiss which you have filed in this matter. RESPONSE: Objection. This claim was not denied and the Insured was fully compensated for the loss. 6. Copies of any and all statements and any transcripts for the same which have been reduced to writing and/or transcribed, from any person who has knowledge of the facts in this matter and/or evaluated the damages or claim, including any expert witness, engineer, contractor, person, entity, and/or the Defendant (defined above) herein. RESPONSE: No recorded statements were taken of the insured.7. Copies of any and all recorded statement(s) and telephone conversations, as well as any transcripts including but not limited to Examinations Under Oath, which were taken of or provided by Plaintiff which are in your possession, custody or control. RESPONSE: No recorded statements were taken of the insured. 8. Copies of any and all recorded statement(s) and telephone conversations, as well as any transcripts for the same which has been reduced to writing and/or transcribed, including but not limited to Examinations Under Oath, which were taken of or provided by Plaintiff or his/her representatives (defined above) which are in your possession, custody or control. RESPONSE: There are no recorded statements. 9. Copies of any and all recorded statement(s) and telephone conversations, as well as any transcripts for the same which has been reduced to writing and/or transcribed, which were taken of or provided by any witness to the loss and/or work performed or to be performed by Plaintiff which are in your possession, custody or control. RESPONSE: There are no recorded statements. 10. Each and every document, report, chart, graph, object, summary, compilation of data or other thing relied upon by any of your experts, in whole or in part, in the formulation of any opinions and conclusion in this case. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, vague, and seeks disclosure of information that is irrelevant and not discoverable in this first- party breach of contract claim. Pursuant to Florida law, the requested documents/information are protected from disclosure pursuant to the work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege.The Defendant’s objections are supported by Florida law, including the following doctrine: (1) ~—- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino—Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“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”); (2) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing that “discovery request [for]-internal procedural memos, claims manuals, and standards for proper investigation of claims-do, as the district court noted, appear irrelevant”); (3) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer's claim file, investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies and manuals, training materials, and other internal information as not relevant and protected as work product in first party breach of contract action contesting insurer's determination of amount insurer was willing to pay for damage to home); (4) State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, v. Valido, 662 So, 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995) (holding that homeowners insurer's claim files, manuals, guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant to first party dispute over insurer's refusal to pay hurricane claim under policy, and therefore did not have to be produced and insurer's surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were protected by work product privilege); (5) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“where 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....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); (6) Cent. Fla. Skates v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (“Holding that underwriting file “contains information which is either irrelevant to the respondent's action or privileged and which is therefore not discoverable”); (7) Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (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”);(8) () (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Trial court's order requiring insurer to produce claim file and underwriting file where issues of liability and damages had not been determined constituted a departure from essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable harm); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of contract, 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); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“Until the right of coverage is first established, a plaintiff claiming to be an insured cannot compel disclosure of the insurer's work product and privileged matters in its claims file.”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding well taken the insurer's argument that Florida law “prohibits insureds from obtaining discovery into an insurer's claims files and claims handling materials until contract/coverage litigation has been concluded”); American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (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); Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Work-product protection extends to information gathered in anticipation of litigation by corporate non-attorney employees, including employees of a corporation's risk management department. Internal investigative reports are also covered by the rule. A lawsuit need not be filed for information gathered in an accident investigation to qualify for work-product protection”); Heartland Express, Inc., of Iowa v. Torres, 90 So. 3d 365, 367-368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that documents created by investigators and employees of a risk management department are protected from disclosure); Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Clearly any documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators are now protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore, the Tromps cannot obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly(16) a7 (18) (19) (20) by merely labeling the contents of the investigators' reports as ‘observations.’ The investigators' ‘observations’ are the equivalent of any documents or reports they may have generated in the course of their investigations and are discoverable only under the conditions in rule 1.280(b)(3)); Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (if an expert has been hired to conduct an investigation in anticipation of litigation, his reports and memoranda constitute materials compiled in preparation for trial and he cannot be required to reveal the findings relevant to his investigation, absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship); See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding that an investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the work-product of his or her investigations); Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (explaining that an investigator employed by a party cannot properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents of any communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the incident or his investigation thereof, absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship); Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) (holding that an insurer was not required to produce claim file in discovery in breach of contract action brought by property owners against insurer, in which property owners alleged that payments made on their claim were inadequate; law prohibiting the disclosure of “claims file” material encompassed items such as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and property loss notice forms, which were all specific to the handling of an individual claim); Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that, in a first party property coverage dispute, deposition questions posed to a party regarding adjuster's conversations that occurred and work performed during initial investigation, as well as the adjuster's analysis of a bid, and notes concerning the analysis constituted work product intertwined with matters irrelevant to first party coverage dispute).11. Copies of any photographs of Plaintiff's Property located at 419 SW 80th Ave., North Lauderdale, FL 33068 which are in your possession, custody or control. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, vague, and seeks disclosure of information that is irrelevant and not discoverable in this first- party breach of contract claim. Pursuant to Florida law, the requested documents/information are protected from disclosure pursuant to the work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege. The Defendant’s objections are supported by Florida law, including the following doctrine: (1) ~—- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino—Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“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”); (2) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing that “discovery request [for]-internal procedural memos, claims manuals, and standards for proper investigation of claims-do, as the district court noted, appear irrelevant”); (3) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer's claim file, investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies and manuals, training materials, and other internal information as not relevant and protected as work product in first party breach of contract action contesting insurer's determination of amount insurer was willing to pay for damage to home); (4) State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, v. Valido, 662 So, 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995) (holding that homeowners insurer's claim files, manuals, guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant to first party dispute over insurer's refusal to pay hurricane claim under policy, and therefore did not have to be produced and insurer's surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were protected by work product privilege); (5) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“where 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....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);(6) ™ (8) Q) (10) a (12) (13) Cent. Fla. Skates v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (“Holding that underwriting file “contains information which is either irrelevant to the respondent's action or privileged and which is therefore not discoverable”); Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (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”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Trial court's order requiring insurer to produce claim file and underwriting file where issues of liability and damages had not been determined constituted a departure from essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable harm); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of contract, 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); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“Until the right of coverage is first established, a plaintiff claiming to be an insured cannot compel disclosure of the insurer's work product and privileged matters in its claims file.”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding well taken the insurer's argument that Florida law “prohibits insureds from obtaining discovery into an insurer's claims files and claims handling materials until contract/coverage litigation has been concluded”); American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (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); Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Work-product protection extends to information gathered in anticipation of litigation by corporate non-attorney employees, including employees of a corporation's risk management department. Internal investigative reports are also covered by the rule. A lawsuit need not be filed for information gathered in an accident investigation to qualify for work-product protection”);(4) (15) (16) a7) (18) (19) Heartland Express, Inc., of Iowa v. Torres, 90 So. 3d 365, 367-368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that documents created by investigators and employees of a risk management department are protected from disclosure); Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Clearly any documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators are now protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore, the Tromps cannot obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly by merely labeling the contents of the investigators’ reports as ‘observations.’ The investigators' ‘observations’ are the equivalent of any documents or reports they may have generated in the course of their investigations and are discoverable only under the conditions in rule 1.280(b)(3)); Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (if an expert has been hired to conduct an investigation in anticipation of litigation, his reports and memoranda constitute materials compiled in preparation for trial and he cannot be required to reveal the findings relevant to his investigation, absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship); See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding that an investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the work-product of his or her investigations); Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (explaining that an investigator employed by a party cannot properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents of any communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the incident or his investigation thereof, absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship); Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) (holding that an insurer was not required to produce claim file in discovery in breach of contract action brought by property owners against insurer, in which property owners alleged that payments made on their claim were inadequate; law prohibiting the disclosure of “claims file” material encompassed items such as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and property loss notice forms, which were all specific to the handling of an individual claim); (20) Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that, in a first party property coverage dispute, deposition questions posed to a party regardingadjuster's conversations that occurred and work performed during initial investigation, as well as the adjuster's analysis of a bid, and notes concerning the analysis constituted work product intertwined with matters irrelevant to first party coverage dispute). 12. Copies of any photographs which reflect any damage done at Plaintiff's Property located at 419 SW 80th Ave., North Lauderdale, FL 33068 which are in your possession, custody or control. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, vague, and seeks disclosure of information that is irrelevant and not discoverable in this first- party breach of contract claim. Pursuant to Florida law, the requested documents/information are protected from disclosure pursuant to the work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege. The Defendant’s objections are supported by Florida law, including the following doctrine: (1) Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino—Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“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”); (2) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing that “discovery request [for]-internal procedural memos, claims manuals, and standards for proper investigation of claims-do, as the district court noted, appear irrelevant”); (3) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer's claim file, investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies and manuals, training materials, and other internal information as not relevant and protected as work product in first party breach of contract action contesting insurer's determination of amount insurer was willing to pay for damage to home); (4) State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, v. Valido, 662 So, 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd DCA. 1995) (holding that homeowners insurer's claim files, manuals, guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant to first party dispute over insurer's refusal to pay hurricane claim under policy, and therefore did not have to be produced and insurer's(3) () ” (8) Y ay ay) (12) surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were protected by work product privilege); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“where 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....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); Cent. Fla. Skates v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (“Holding that underwriting file “contains information which is either irrelevant to the respondent's action or privileged and which is therefore not discoverable”); Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (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”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Trial court's order requiring insurer to produce claim file and underwriting file where issues of liability and damages had not been determined constituted a departure from essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable harm); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of contract, 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); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“Until the right of coverage is first established, a plaintiff claiming to be an insured cannot compel disclosure of the insurer's work product and privileged matters in its claims file.”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding well taken the insurer's argument that Florida law “prohibits insureds from obtaining discovery into an insurer's claims files and claims handling materials until contract/coverage litigation has been concluded”); American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (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(13) a4) ds) (16) qd?) law to order disclosure of the insurer's claims file and the insurer's claims handling manuals and materials); Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Work- product protection extends to information gathered in anticipation of litigation by corporate non-attorney employees, including employees of a corporation's risk management department. Internal investigative reports are also covered by the rule. A lawsuit need not be filed for information gathered in an accident investigation to qualify for work-product protection”); Heartland Express, Inc., of Iowa v. Torres, 90 So. 3d 365, 367-368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that documents created by investigators and employees of a risk management department are protected from disclosure); Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Clearly any documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators are now protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore, the Tromps cannot obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly by merely labeling the contents of the investigators’ reports as ‘observations.’ The investigators’ ‘observations’ are the equivalent of any documents or reports they may have generated in the course of their investigations and are discoverable only under the conditions in rule 1.280(b)(3)); Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (if an expert has been hired to conduct an investigation in anticipation of litigation, his reports and memoranda constitute materials compiled in preparation for trial and he cannot be required to reveal the findings relevant to his investigation, absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship); See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding that an investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the work-product of his or her investigations); (18) Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st ay) DCA 1981) (explaining that an investigator employed by a party cannot properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents of any communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the incident or his investigation thereof, absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship); Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) (holding that an insurer was not required to produce claim file in discovery in breach of contract action brought by property owners against insurer, in which property ownersalleged that payments made on their claim were inadequate; law prohibiting the disclosure of “claims file” material encompassed items such as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and property loss notice forms, which were all specific to the handling of an individual claim); (20) Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that, in a first party property coverage dispute, deposition questions posed to a party regarding adjuster's conversations that occurred and work performed during initial investigation, as well as the adjuster's analysis of a bid, and notes concerning the analysis constituted work product intertwined with matters irrelevant to first party coverage dispute). 13. Copies of any photographs of any work performed by Plaintiff or his/her representatives (defined above) at Plaintiff's Property located at 419 SW 80th Ave., North Lauderdale, FL 33068 which are in your possession, custody or control. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, vague, and seeks disclosure of information that is irrelevant and not discoverable in this first- party breach of contract claim. Pursuant to Florida law, the requested documents/information are protected from disclosure pursuant to the work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege. The Defendant’s objections are supported by Florida law, including the following doctrine: (1) Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino—Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“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”); (2) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (recognizing that “discovery request [for]-internal procedural memos, claims manuals, and standards for proper investigation of claims-do, as the district court noted, appear irrelevant”); (3) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003) (quashing order requiring insurer to disclose insurer's claim file, investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies and manuals, training materials, and other internal information as not4 () () ” (8) ~Y relevant and protected as work product in first party breach of contract action contesting insurer's determination of amount insurer was willing to pay for damage to home); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, v. Valido, 662 So, 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995) (holding that homeowners insurer's claim files, manuals, guidelines and documents concerning its claim handling procedures were irrelevant to first party dispute over insurer's refusal to pay hurricane claim under policy, and therefore did not have to be produced and insurer's surveillance photographs, witness statements and repair estimates were protected by work product privilege); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Aloni, 101 So, 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“where 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....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); Cent. Fla. Skates v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (“Holding that underwriting file “contains information which is either irrelevant to the respondent's action or privileged and which is therefore not discoverable”); Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (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”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Trial court's order requiring insurer to produce claim file and underwriting file where issues of liability and damages had not been determined constituted a departure from essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable harm); Nationwide Ins. Co. of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (where an insured is not pursuing a bad faith claim, but rather seeks relief for breach of contract, 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); (10) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 506 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“Until the right of coverage is first established, a plaintiff claiming to be an insured cannot compel disclosure of the insurer's work product and privileged matters in its claims file.”);ay) State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding well taken the insurer's argument that Florida law “prohibits insureds from obtaining discovery into an insurer's claims files and claims handling materials until contract/coverage litigation has been concluded”); (12) American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA (13) a4 (18) (16) a7 1998) (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); Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Work- product protection extends to information gathered in anticipation of litigation by corporate non-attorney employees, including employees of a corporation's risk management department. Internal investigative reports are also covered by the rule. A lawsuit need not be filed for information gathered in an accident investigation to qualify for work-product protection”); Heartland Express, Inc., of Iowa y. Torres, 90 So. 3d 365, 367-368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that documents created by investigators and employees of a risk management department are protected from disclosure); Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Clearly any documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators are now protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore, the Tromps cannot obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly by merely labeling the contents of the investigators' reports as ‘observations.’ The investigators’ ‘observations’ are the equivalent of any documents or reports they may have generated in the course of their investigations and are discoverable only under the conditions in rule 1.280(b)(3)); Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (if an expert has been hired to conduct an investigation in anticipation of litigation, his reports and memoranda constitute materials compiled in preparation for trial and he cannot be required to reveal the findings relevant to his investigation, absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship); See Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding that an investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the work-product of his or her investigations); (18) Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (explaining that an investigator employed by a party cannot properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents ofany communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the incident or his investigation thereof, absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship); (19) Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) (holding that an insurer was not required to produce claim file in discovery in breach of contract action brought by property owners against insurer, in which property owners alleged that payments made on their claim were inadequate; law prohibiting the disclosure of “claims file” material encompassed items such as notes in the claims file, property loss information, and property loss notice forms, which were all specific to the handling of an individual claim); (20) Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that, in a first party property coverage dispute, deposition questions posed to a party regarding adjuster's conversations that occurred and work performed during initial investigation, as well as the adjuster's analysis of a bid, and notes concerning the analysis constituted work product intertwined with matters irrelevant to first party coverage dispute). 14. Copies of any and all estimates and damage appraisals and other documents (defined