Fortune Insurance Co. v. Matos
Docket: No. 94-04005
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 25, 1995; Florida; State Appellate Court
Judge Altenbernd expresses confusion regarding the distinction made in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston between harmful and non-harmful discovery. He asserts that the improper discovery in this case leads to irreparable harm that cannot be remedied through later appeal. Fortune Insurance Company has established jurisdiction for certiorari review, as outlined in Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works. The case involves a personal injury protection (PIP) benefits claim by plaintiffs Luis Matos and Teresa Duarte for their son, Carlos Matos, following a car accident on October 23, 1993. The complaint alleges non-payment of medical bills without providing a viable cause of action for the surplus claim of deliberate breach. The central issues in this PIP case focus on the reasonableness and necessity of Carlos's medical bills and adherence to statutory claims procedures. The plaintiffs sought discovery of Fortune’s internal manuals related to PIP claim processing, which Judge Altenbernd deems irrelevant to the lawsuit. He notes that such requests, while potentially valid in cases alleging violations of the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act, are not appropriate here. Despite the trial court's order for production, Fortune filed a certiorari petition to quash this order. According to the tests from Langston, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) that the discovery will cause harm beyond mere monetary expense—Fortune asserts that its manuals are proprietary; and (2) that the discovery issue is likely to evade review on plenary appeal, which Judge Altenbernd finds applicable since the requested documents do not pertain to material issues in the case and will not lead to admissible evidence at trial. Fortune's attorneys cannot file a direct appeal regarding a discovery error, but this error does not adversely affect the final judgment, establishing irreparable harm for jurisdiction to review the discovery order. The key legal issue is whether the order deviates from essential legal requirements, specifically if the discovery sought is irrelevant or won't lead to relevant information. Fortune has demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a remand for assessing the relevance of the requested discovery, supported by the case law cited. There is ambiguity as to why the matter is in circuit court instead of county court. Fortune should be allowed another opportunity to meet the established criteria, especially since the trial court made its ruling before a relevant precedent was set in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston. The burden of proving the relevancy of the discovery on remand should generally rest with the party seeking production.