An appellate court in Florida has rejected a request by an automobile insurer in a first-party insurance coverage case to block the deposition of the insurer’s representative, declaring that the insurer’s confession of judgment had not ended the litigation.
The Case
In July 2017, Pedro Martin Mesquita was involved in an automobile accident. After his auto insurer, Windhaven Insurance Company, sought to rescind the policy due to an alleged misrepresentation in Mr. Mesquita’s insurance application, Mr. Mesquita filed a single-count complaint against Windhaven for breach of contract.
Mr. Mesquita’s original complaint alleged unspecified damages resulting from Windhaven’s “fail[ure] to provide either coverage or payment to [Mr. Mesquita] for his losses stemming from the Loss.” Windhaven, apparently under the impression that Mr. Mesquita was seeking insurance proceeds only for damage sustained by his own automobile, answered the complaint and asserted as an affirmative defense that the policy contained no collision or comprehensive coverage for Mr. Mesquita’s vehicle.
Before Windhaven filed its answer, however, Mr. Mesquita had filed an amended complaint, again for unspecified damages. Mr. Mesquita’s amended complaint alleged that he “suffered personal injuries and other covered losses as a result of a traffic accident.”
Thereafter, Windhaven filed a Notice of Confession of Judgment, acknowledging that Mr. Mesquita was “entitled to coverage for Personal Injury Protection Benefits as well as coverage for any Properly (sic) damage claims against him pursuant to the policy in question.”
Windhaven also conceded Mr. Mesquita’s entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
At the time Windhaven filed its confession of judgment, Mr. Mesquita already had filed a motion to compel the deposition of a Windhaven representative, which was pending.
The trial court conducted a hearing on Mr. Mesquita’s motion to compel, ultimately granting the motion without limiting the scope of the allowable inquiry to only PIP or property damages. The order, however, did prohibit Mr. Mesquita from seeking any financial information regarding Windhaven.
The trial court denied Windhaven’s motion for rehearing, and Windhaven asked an appellate court for relief. It argued that, because of Windhaven’s confession of judgment, the trial court had departed from the essential requirements of law by allowing Mr. Mesquita to take the deposition of Windhaven’s representative.
The Appellate Court’s Decision
The appellate court denied Windhaven’s petition for relief.
In its decision, the appellate court explained that Windhaven appeared to suggest that, by its filing a confession of judgment, the case had ended and discovery – especially discovery as to why Windhaven initially might have denied coverage – was “irrelevant.”
The appellate court found two problems with Windhaven’s argument. First, it said, the case was “not over” because the issue of damages remained to be adjudicated. “Hence,” the appellate court declared, “Windhaven’s confession of judgment did not ‘end’ the case.”
The appellate court acknowledged Windhaven’s argument that a deposition of its agent might not shed light on outstanding damages issues, but said that the second problem with Windhaven’s argument was that an order allowing discovery that potentially could lack relevancy was “not subject to certiorari relief.” It said that it did not view the trial court’s order as affording Mr. Mesquita “carte blanche” to irrelevant discovery, and concluded that it could not find that the discovery order departed from “the essential requirements of law, causing material injury.”
The case is Windhaven Ins. Co. v. Mesquita, No. 3D19-736 (Fla. Ct. App. July 31, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Blanca D. Cruz, P.A., and Shelley Ray Senecal, for petitioner. Vargas Gonzalez Hevia Baldwin, LLP, and Matthew L. Baldwin; Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A., and William A. Bonner, for respondent.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].