State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Cramer
State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Cramer, (July 2010). The issue was related to the discovery of the insurer’s claims and litigation files by their own insured, in a first party action for benefits. The 4th DCA found the Trial Judge erred when he denied the carrier’s Motion for Protective Order and found the carrier had waived all objections by filing a Motion for Protective Order but not specifically asserting their privilege objections. The DCA held Plaintiffs were not legally entitled to what was requested, because it is the carrier’s work product and attorney/client protected documents. These privileges cannot be deemed waived under the circumstances presented, where a Motion for Protective Order was filed. A school teacher sued his principal and assistant principal, alleging they ‘procured’ another school employee to make a false bomb threat call using the Plaintiff’s name — after Plaintiff had been fired. Plaintiff’s claim was based on theories of malicious prosecution and slander. The DCA held it was error to bar the testimony of the other school employee, who was in prison for making the false bomb threat, on the ground that the testimony was ‘a matter of bold face, on the record, lies.’ The DCA held it was error to enter Summary Judgment for the Defendant principal and assistant principal, after the trial judge erroneously excluded the only testimony linking those Defendants to the false bomb threat. Bradley v. Cooper, (3rd DCA 2010).