Decision: Underwriting Discovery Is Not Categorically Prohibited in Insurance Coverage Cases

Discovery in insurance coverage actions in Florida is often hotly litigated. Despite the prevalence of discovery disputes, case law has often failed to provide much uniform guidance to practitioners around the state. Indeed, Florida state and federal court decisions seem to conflict on several aspects of insurance-related discovery, as do the various district courts of appeal. For example, compare State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA App. 1995) (quashing order requiring production of State Farm’s claim files, manuals, guidelines and documents in a first party coverage dispute, finding documents irrelevant to dispute) and Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance v. Mahady, 284 So. 3d 582, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quashing order allowing discovery of claim files and underwriting files in coverage dispute because “insurer’s liability for coverage and the amount of the policy owners’ damages have not been finally determined”) with American Home Assurance v. Vreeland, 973 So. 2d 668, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA. 2008) (allowing limited discovery of underwriting file relevant to whether a party was an insured).

Even courts within the same district have reached seemingly conflicting results in different discovery disputes, particularly as it relates to the discoverability of the insurer’s underwriting file, underwriting manuals, or underwriting guidelines. Compare Corum v. Penn-American Insurance, No. 08-80732-CIV, 2009 WL 10666960, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 12, 2009) (“Any underwriting guidelines the defendant may have consulted before issuing the subject policy have no bearing on whether that policy, as written, provides for coverage in this case.”) and Milinazzo v. State Farm Insurance, 247 F.R.D. 691, 702 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (collecting cases and stating “the decisions suggest the underwriting files are discoverable in bad faith claims, but in breach of contract claims, only discoverable when the contract terms are ambiguous”) with GEICO v. Jesus, No. 15-81027-CV, 2016 WL 8813844, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2016) (allowing corporate representative deposition to go forward on underwriting topic, but only as it relates to insured, in coverage action) and AIG Centennial Insurance v. O’Neill, No. 09-60551-CIV-ZLOCH, 2010 WL 4116555, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2010) (allowing discovery of underwriting documents, including underwriting manual, finding documents “relevant to the materiality aspect of the misrepresentation claim charged by Centennial in its amended complaint.”).