Where there is no pending Bad Faith claim, and Coverage is undetermined, GEICO did not have to provide "documents setting forth GEICO's general claims handling practices and procedures," including "among other things, [whether] GEICO trained its examiners regarding 'good faith claims handling,'" Florida's Third District Court of Appeal has recently held: GEICO v. Rodriguez (Fla. 3d DCA Case No. 3D07.669, Opinion Filed June 20, 2007: STATED NOT RELEASED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION).
The nature of the lawsuit is interesting. The appellate court describes it only as an "automobile negligence case". The Court does not mention it, but in Florida Injured Plaintiffs who sue a Policyholder for "automobile negligence" cannot sue an Insurance Company until they hold a judgment against the Policyholder. The Rodriguezes sued one Blanchard, a GEICO Policyholder. Blanchard denied liability and alleged an affirmative defense of settlement. In the Rodriguez lawsuit against him, Blanchard affirmatively alleged that Blanchard's Insurance Carrier, GEICO, had already settled with the Rodriguezes before they filed their lawsuit against Blanchard.
The Rodriguezes, according to the appellate opinion, then served or made "discovery requests" upon GEICO including for GEICO's documents setting forth its claims handling practices and procedures and whether it trained its claims handlers in good faith claim handling practices. This means, since GEICO could not have been a party to the Rodriguez lawsuit against Blanchard, that GEICO was a nonparty in that lawsuit and had to be subpoenaed for these documents. None of this background is set out in the opinion on appeal, where the appellate court treated GEICO as a party raising an affirmative defense of settlement, or "accord and satisfaction," although only Blanchard could raise that affirmative defense as the ONLY party Defendant in the Rodriguez lawsuit.
GEICO moved for a protective order, which the Trial Court denied, and the dispute reached the appellate court by a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, or request for a discretionary review of the Trial Court's ruling. On appeal, the Rodriguezes continued to argue that GEICO "opened the door" to discovery of its claims handling practices because GEICO asserted "the defense of settlement." Even though Blanchard the GEICO Policyholder raised the affirmative defense--so that if anyone, Blanchard and not GEICO "opened the door"--the appellate court ignored the procedural posture and went straight to the issue of whether GEICO under these circumstances should be compelled to produce documents concerning its claims handling practices. The "defense of settlement" was no door opener to such discovery, not in the eyes of the Third District which wrote in its opinion:
The argument that GEICO somehow opened the door to inquiry regarding its claims handling procedures by interposing the defense of settlement is without merit. Either the case was settled, or it was not. The content of GEICO's internal claims handling procedures is immaterial.
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments