In the Holland v. Barfield matter, the Fifth District Court of Appeal determined that in a wrongful death case the trial case erred in compelling a defendant to produce all computer hard drives and all cellphone SIM cards as the Order did not protect against disclosure of confidential and privileged information, nor did it establish a limit or time frame.
In the Shaw v. State Farm matter, the Fifth District Court of Appeal determined that an examination under oath of a medical provider in a PIP matter does not have to submit to an examination under oath. The Fifth District Court of Appeal certified the question to the Supreme Court on this issue. As a result, the Supreme Court will make a determination as to whether or not a medical provider has to submit to an EUO.
Finally, in the Hill v. State Farm matter, the Second District Court of Appeal determined that an insurance company is not responsible for attorney’s fees if the insured filed suit simply as an effort to seek attorney’s fees for the normal process of adjusting the claim.