TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Utica Mutual Insurance v. Croft

UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Delbert CROFT

Utica Mut. Ins. v. Croft, 432 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 25, 1983
Docket
No. AR-426
Judges
Booth, Mills, Shivers
Citations
432 So. 2d 1961983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19550
Cited by 6

Opinion of the Court — Mills

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MILLS, Judge.

Utica petitions for a writ of certiorari, contending the trial court erred in issuing its order compelling Utica to produce its claims file for inspection by Croft, the plaintiff below. We agree and quash the order compelling discovery.

Croft was the owner of a policy issued by Utica insuring a machine owned by Croft against loss by fire. After the machine was damaged by fire, a dispute arose over whether Utica was obligated to pay under the terms of the policy. Croft filed suit.

*197 A request to produce was filed by Croft, requesting that Utica produce for his inspection the contents of its claims file. Uti-ca objected, contending that the matters contained in the file were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine. Following an in camera inspection, the trial court found that the file “contains nit privileged matters and should be made available for inspection by Counsel for the Plaintiff.”

Our examination of the contents of the claims file reveals that it contains the personal thoughts of Utica’s employees regarding evaluation of the claim and possible settlement offers. The work product doctrine clearly was designed to protect matters such as these from discovery. United States Fire Insurance Company v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So.2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The trial court erred in issuing its order compelling discovery.

Certiorari is granted and the order compelling discovery is quashed.

BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1985: 11987: 11990: 11996: 22012: 119852026peak 1996 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Henderson v. Zurn Industries, Inc.131 F.R.D. 560 (S.D. Ind. 1990)
  2. Fidelity & Cas. Ins. Co. of NY v. Taylor525 So. 2d 908 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
  3. Allstate Ins. v. AMERICAN SOUTHERN HOME680 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
  4. Zirkelbach Construction Inc. v. Rajan93 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
  5. Bishopsgate Insurance Co. v. Hull & Co.475 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
  6. Allstate Insurance Co. v. American Southern Home Insurance Co.680 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Most recent

  1. Zirkelbach Construction Inc. v. Rajan93 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
  2. Allstate Ins. v. AMERICAN SOUTHERN HOME680 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
  3. Allstate Insurance Co. v. American Southern Home Insurance Co.680 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
  4. Henderson v. Zurn Industries, Inc.131 F.R.D. 560 (S.D. Ind. 1990)
  5. Fidelity & Cas. Ins. Co. of NY v. Taylor525 So. 2d 908 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
  6. Bishopsgate Insurance Co. v. Hull & Co.475 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
US Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So. 2d 783 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) 19
Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972) 17

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list