Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.green1 sentence2026The production sought in Genovese was the insurer's claim file, and the supreme court explained why in bad faith actions the work product doctrine is set aside specifically for insurer's claims files: "Because the underlying claim materials are 'necessary to advance [a first-party bad faith] action . . . [and] evaluate the allegations of bad faith,' the materials fall within the confines of the exception to the work-product doctrine, and thus are discoverable." Genovese, 74 So. 3d at 1068 (alterations in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Ruiz, 899 So. 2d at 1128-29 ); see also Fla. R. | 1 | 1 |
City of Ocala v. Gardgreen1 sentence2010Nevertheless, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) provides that when a party seeks an improper remedy, “the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought.” Here, a writ of prohibition is appropriate “to forestall an impending injury where no other appropriate and adequate legal remedy exists and only when damage is likely to follow.” City of Ocala v. Gard, 988 So.2d 1281, 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Julianogreen1 sentence2007See Juliano, 801 So.2d at 106 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz
green
2 sentences2026The production sought in Genovese was the insurer's claim file, and the supreme court explained why in bad faith actions the work product doctrine is set aside specifically for insurer's claims files: "Because the underlying claim materials are 'necessary to advance [a first-party bad faith] action . . . [and] evaluate the allegations of bad faith,' the materials fall within the confines of the exception to the work-product doctrine, and thus are discoverable." Genovese, 74 So. 3d at 1068 (alterations in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Ruiz, 899 So. 2d at 1128-29 ); see also Fla. R. 2011Because the underlying claim materials are “necessary to advance [a first-party bad faith] action ... [and] evaluate the allegations of bad faith,” see Ruiz, 899 So.2d at 1128-29 , the materials fall within the confines of the exception to the work-product doctrine, and thus are discoverable. | 2 | 2011–2026 |
Thornton v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.