descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Bishopsgate Insurance Co. v. Hull & Co.

Citations: 475 So. 2d 1373; 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2323; 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16177Docket: No. 85-791

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 9, 1985; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the trial court's order from March 14, 1985, is quashed. The materials in question are determined to be either work product or protected by attorney-client privilege. The respondents did not meet the necessary requirements set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2). This decision references relevant case law, including Broward Marine, Inc. v. McCall and Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Croft. The reversal is issued without prejudice, allowing the trial court to reconsider the issue in accordance with Rule 1.280(b)(2). Judges ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN, and WALDEN concur with the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review and Quashing of Lower Court Decisions

Application: The appellate court exercised its power to quash the trial court's order, indicating a reversible error in the trial court's decision-making process.

Reasoning: The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the trial court's order from March 14, 1985, is quashed.

Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine

Application: The court determined that the materials in question are protected under attorney-client privilege or as work product, preventing their disclosure.

Reasoning: The materials in question are determined to be either work product or protected by attorney-client privilege.

Reconsideration of Issues Without Prejudice

Application: The decision allows the trial court to reconsider the issue without prejudice, providing an opportunity to reassess in light of proper legal standards.

Reasoning: The reversal is issued without prejudice, allowing the trial court to reconsider the issue in accordance with Rule 1.280(b)(2).

Requirements under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2)

Application: The respondents failed to meet the requirements necessary to overcome the protections of work product and attorney-client privilege as outlined in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2).

Reasoning: The respondents did not meet the necessary requirements set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2).