Kessler v. Progressive Insurance
Fla. 2nd DCA (2026) – Appellate Law
Facts
Following an excess verdict and bad faith lawsuit, Plaintiff’s underlying personal injury attorney was deposed. She objected to answering questions about her evaluation of the underling case and her client’s willingness to settle as barred by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled the objections and ordered the attorney to answer the questions finding the questions relevant to the question of Plaintiff’s willingness to settle and finding the filing of a bad faith case constitutes a limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Plaintiff petitioned for writ of certiorari.
Holding
Petition granted, order quashed. A bad faith case – contrary to the majority of federal district court opinions – does not constitute a limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, and the underlying attorney cannot be compelled to disclose such communications and impressions.
Lopez v. U-Haul
Fla. 3rd DCA (2026) – Appellate Law
Issue
Do so-called third party claimants (i.e., typically, injured plaintiffs) have standing to fight an insurer in a declaratory judgment prior to the underlying case resolving?
Holding
Yes. Third party claimants have standing to fight the insurer in the declaratory judgment action even if the underlying case has not been resolved.
Palm Beach Surgery v. Grazioli
Fla. 3d DCA (2026) – Appellate Law
Holding
This is an overly simplistic explanation but essentially granting certiorari petition by Defendant to dismiss negligent credentialing claim that was not properly investigated in pre-suit nor supported by expert affidavit (and including a good summary of negligent credentialing claims). Further, each individual medical negligence claim must comply with Chapter 766 – as opposed to argument by Plaintiff that a plaintiff is not required to corroborate all discrete claims and against all prospective defendants so long as a claim against each defendant is corroborated.
Chetu v. CA Short Co.
Fla. 4th DCA (2026) – Appellate Law
Holding
Consequential damages in a contract action can be contracted away, and the trial court here erred by awarding consequential damages despite being expressly barred by the operative contract.
Our team is available to discuss the topics written here and ready to provide additional information contained in this article. Contact us for more information.
