Full Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D20-727 _____________________________ AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. FLOYD VENABLE and BETTY VENABLE, Respondents. _____________________________ Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction. Bruce Anderson, Judge. July 19, 2021 B.L. THOMAS, J. Petitioner challenges the trial court’s order requiring Petitioner to produce its underwriting manuals and certain documents contained in its underwriting file. We deny Petitioner’s request as to its underwriting manuals, 1 but we grant its request as to the documents contained in its underwriting file. 1 At the hearing, Respondents’ request for Petitioner to produce its underwriting manuals was narrowed to include only Facts Respondents filed a complaint against Petitioner alleging that Petitioner breached Respondents’ homeowner’s insurance policy by denying coverage and failing to pay for losses arising from water damage to Respondents’ home. Respondents filed a request to produce, Petitioner objected on grounds of overbreadth and privilege, and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. Respondents’ eighth request was for “[t]he complete underwriting file with regard to Defendant’s issuance of insurance on the subject risk and all renewals.” The trial court ruled that Respondents’ eighth request was overly broad, so Respondents narrowed the request to include only “inspection reports, photographs, or documents related to the condition of the property.” Petitioner continued to object and offered to provide the underwriting file to the trial court for an in-camera review. The trial court denied Petitioner’s offer and overruled its objection. Analysis This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A). Certiorari review is appropriate when “a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury to a petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995). Claims files and underwriting files are not subject to disclosure in a breach of contract action. 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.”). In addition to protection based on work product, protection for claims files and underwriting files also derives from the confidential and proprietary nature of such documents. publicly-available documents Petitioner had filed with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. 2 Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., v. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180, 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (Logue, J., concurring). Further, a party responding to a specifically articulated document request may either (a) produce such specifically articulated documents, or (b) provide a privilege log with a specifically articulated basis for protection from discovery. Avila, 248 So. 3d at 184–85. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6), 2 when a party makes a claim of privilege the party should be given the opportunity to file a privilege log, and the trial court should conduct an in-camera inspection of any documents for which a claim of privilege is asserted. See Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 291 So. 3d 663, 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Even so, “the obligation to file a privilege log does not arise until the information is determined to be ‘discoverable’—which is after the trial court has ruled on the party’s non-privilege discovery objections.” Id. As in Avatar, Petitioner’s obligation to produce a privilege log did not mature until after its asserted non-privilege objection was resolved. See id. at 667. We hold the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to allow Petitioner reasonable time after the court had ruled on the non-privilege objections to file its privilege log addressing the subject documents. 3 See id. at 667–68. The trial court should have then 2 “When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents . . . in a manner that . . . will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(6). 3 Petitioner filed a privilege log; however, the only information filed with the trial court was a single line claiming privilege for over one hundred pages of Petitioner’s “[i]nternal claims-handling log, notes.” Petitioner’s counsel clarified that this was Petitioner’s entire claims file, which included more documents than those requested by Respondents at the hearing. 3 conducted an in-camera inspection of any documents for which Petitioner asserted a claim of privilege or confidentiality. We quash the trial court’s order requiring Petitioner to comply with Respondents’ narrowed request to produce. GRANTED in part; DENIED in part. ROWE, C.J., and M.K. THOMAS, J., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Maria F. Gibson and Nikki E. Hawkins of Kelley Kronenberg, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioner. Mark A. Nation of The Nation Law Firm, Longwood, for Respondents. 4