Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 10, 2019.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-118
Lower Tribunal No. 17-7166
________________
Juan A. Jiménez,
Petitioner,
vs.
Granada Insurance Company, et al.,
Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.
Davis, Giardino & Hrivnak, P.A., and Wayne T. Hrivnak (West Palm Beach),
for petitioner.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, and James H. Wyman, for respondent Granada
Insurance Company.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ.
SCALES, J.
In this petition for writ of certiorari, Juan Jimenez, a non-party movant below,
argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in
failing to grant Mr. Jimenez’s motion for a protective order directed toward two non-
party subpoenas served on Infinity Auto Insurance Company (“Infinity Auto”) and
Western Heritage Insurance Company (“Western Heritage”). Because Mr. Jimenez
has failed to demonstrate the requisite irreparable harm, we lack jurisdiction to hear,
and therefore dismiss, the instant petition. See CQB, 2010, LLC v. Bank of New
York Mellon, 177 So. 3d 644, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“The requirement of
material, irreparable harm is jurisdictional. We must dismiss the petition if it is not
met.”).
In October 2015, respondent Carlos Martinez was injured when the bicycle
he was riding collided with a vehicle driven by petitioner Juan Jimenez. Mr.
Martinez thereafter filed a personal injury action against Mr. Jimenez’s employer,
respondent Ben Auto Service, Corporation (“Ben Auto”), and the vehicle’s owner,
Henry Auto Broker Finance, LLC (“Henry Auto”). As to Ben Auto, Mr. Martinez
alleged that the employer was liable for Mr. Jimenez’s negligence because the
subject accident allegedly occurred during the course and scope of Mr. Jimenez’s
employment. As to Henry Auto, Mr. Martinez alleged that the vehicle owner was
liable for Mr. Jimenez’s negligence because Mr. Jimenez allegedly operated the
vehicle with Henry Auto’s knowledge, consent and permission.
2
Ben Auto was an insured under a commercial garage liability policy through
respondent, Granada Insurance Company (“Granada”). In March 2017, Granada
filed the instant declaratory judgment action against Ben Auto and Mr. Martinez,
seeking a declaration that Granada is not required to defend and indemnify Ben Auto
in Mr. Martinez’s personal injury action because the subject accident allegedly did
not occur during the course and scope of Mr. Jimenez’s employment.
In June 2018, Granada served non-party subpoenas for production of
documents without deposition on Infinity Auto, Mr. Jimenez’s personal automobile
insurer, and on Western Heritage, Henry Auto’s insurer. The two non-party
subpoenas seek information contained in the insurers’ claims files – specifically, in
relevant part, any and all recordings, statements, and transcriptions of Mr. Jimenez
with respect to claims made in connection with the subject accident. Importantly,
while neither Infinity Auto nor Western Heritage objected to the non-party
subpoenas, Mr. Jimenez (Infinity Auto’s insured) moved for a protective order
arguing that no portion of the claims files should be produced because the claims
files are privileged work product.
In ruling on Mr. Jimenez’s motions for a protective order, the trial court
ordered that Granada modify the two non-party subpoenas to reflect that the
requested documents be produced to Mr. Jimenez’s counsel so that counsel can: (i)
provide all non-privileged documents to Granada; and (ii) prepare and file a
3
privilege log with respect to the remaining objected-to documents so that the trial
court can conduct an in camera inspection. In this Court, Mr. Jimenez seeks review
of the trial court’s order on his motions for protective order, via petition for writ of
certiorari.
In Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De
Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), this Court
recognized both that an insurer’s “claims file is the insurer’s work product” and that
“the work-product privilege belongs solely to [the insurer].” Neither of the
subpoenaed insurers – Infinity Auto nor Western Heritage – have objected to the
non-party subpoenas in the lower court; nor is either insurer a participant in the
instant petition. We therefore conclude that we lack certiorari jurisdiction because
Mr. Jimenez does not have the requisite standing to assert the work product privilege
on behalf of the two subpoenaed insurers; without standing, Mr. Jimenez cannot
establish the requisite irreparable harm.1
Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed.
1
Given our resolution, we need not and therefore do not, address the correctness of
the subject discovery order.
4