Court OKs open records exemption for insurance claim disputes
Florida's 1st District Court of Appeal


An appellate court on Thursday unanimously upheld a public records exemption covering the names and addresses of consumers who challenge the disposition of claims against homeowner or sinkhole insurance claims.

Two law firms — Danahy & Murray, of Tampa, and Bennett Dennison, of Bradenton — had persuaded Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson to strike down the exemption.

But a three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Judge Clay Roberts, said Dodson went too far. He ruled that the exemption both fulfills a public interest and was not overly broad.

“While the trial court may have disagreed that prohibiting disclosure of name and address information furthered the public necessity of fraud and identity theft prevention, that inquiry was not in its purview,” Roberts wrote.

“In order to be constitutional … , the Legislature had to articulate a specific purpose justifying the exemption. The Legislature did just that; therefore, (the exemption) satisfies the first prong for constitutionality.”

As for the exemption’s breadth, the Legislature had specified that it covered “personal financial and health information” including the “existence, identification, nature, or value of a consumer’s interest in any insurance policy, annuity contract, or trust,” the court said.

“(T)he scope of the exemption here is limited as to content, with the relevant terms and circumstances being defined,” Roberts wrote.

The exemption covers consumers participating in a mediation program for holders of residential property insurance policies, and the “neutral evaluations” system for sinkhole damage insurance. The consolidated legal challenges named the Department of Financial Services and CFO Jimmy Patronis as defendants.

The case arose from a policy shift one year ago. Previously, the department released spreadsheets including the names of policyholders, their addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, type of insurance, reasons for contacting the department, and insurance company information.

But officials decided they’d been misinterpreting the exemption. They began to limit access to the information — initially, regardless of whether an insured or insurer had initiated the mediation or evaluation; and ultimately, only when the consumer did so.

“We decline the plaintiffs’ invitation to speculate as to the reason for the disparate treatment of information when a consumer requests to participate in the programs as opposed to when the request comes from an insurer. If anything, this supports the argument that the Legislature intentionally drafted the exemption no broader than necessary,” the court said.

“It is logical that disclosure of personal identifying information could be used for fraud or identity theft, especially when disclosed in this context where the entity requesting the information also knows that a consumer has an insurance policy and has been involved in a dispute with an insurance company,” the opinion added.

Michael Moline

Michael Moline is a former assistant managing editor of The National Law Journal and managing editor of the San Francisco Daily Journal. Previously, he reported on politics and the courts in Tallahassee for United Press International. He is a graduate of Florida State University, where he served as editor of the Florida Flambeau. His family’s roots in Jackson County date back many generations.

One comment

  • H. Baylor

    April 28, 2018 at 12:26 pm

    I moved to FL in 1990 specifically b’cz of the FL “Stalkers Law”. My identifying information was protected locally within my county with the help of the district attorney’s office: voter registration, property tax assessor, utilities (water, electric, phone), FL Drivers’ license, FL Security Guard license, FDOE teacher certification license, insurers, & initially my main employer. As each entity became computerized or electronically updated, & as the threat grew, it was necessary for me to update my request for identity protection, which I did. However, with the implementation of the Open Records Law under Gov Jeb Bush’s administration, it nullified the protection that the Stalkers Law provided. Some individual departments mentioned above voluntarily continued to offer me the same protection, as well as my local city police department for 10 or 15 years. Even “GoogleCam” showed an empty lot on my street if one were to enter the actual residence address, which the US Post Office didn’t have as I had a post office box that I was allowed to use as my legal address. However, with the proliferation of “people search” websites over the past 15 years, the turnover of personnel in government offices mentioned, and electronic sharing of medical records, it has become impossible to maintain relative security in an Open Records state. There sadly & badly needs to be made an amendment for a Public Records Exemption to the FL Open Records Law, at one time the strongest in the country, – for persons legally protected by the FL Stalkers Law, as well as for insurance claims you champion.

Comments are closed.


Florida Politics is a statewide, new media platform covering campaigns, elections, government, policy, and lobbying in Florida. This platform and all of its content are owned by Extensive Enterprises Media.

Publisher: Peter Schorsch @PeterSchorschFL

Contributors & reporters: Phil Ammann, Drew Dixon, Roseanne Dunkelberger, A.G. Gancarski, Anne Geggis, Ryan Nicol, Jacob Ogles, Cole Pepper, Gray Rohrer, Jesse Scheckner, Christine Sexton, Drew Wilson, and Mike Wright.

Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @PeterSchorschFL
Phone: (727) 642-3162
Address: 204 37th Avenue North #182
St. Petersburg, Florida 33704