Case Law Update: Florida Court Shields Insurers' Trade Secrets

Florida Appeals Court Requires Trade-Secret Review Before Disclosure

Florida's First District Court of Appeal quashed an order requiring disclosure of sealed records claimed to be exempt in litigation involving Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Florida Peninsula Insurance Company, and Edison Insurance Company. The decision does not establish that every disputed record is a trade secret. Instead, it requires the trial court to determine the records' protected status before allowing the requesting parties to receive them or participate fully in discovery concerning them.

The ruling is important for policyholders, public adjusters, independent adjusters, insurers, and attorneys because it addresses the procedure governing access to records submitted to Florida insurance regulators. When an insurer properly marks and certifies material and timely files the circuit-court action required by section 624.4213(1)-(2), Florida Statutes, the material cannot be disclosed before its protected status is decided—even under a confidentiality order.

Background of the Heritage Claims Dispute

The records dispute arose from allegations concerning insurers' handling of field-adjuster reports after Hurricane Ian. Independent adjusters, including Ben Mandell and Jordan Lee, publicly alleged that certain insurers had changed field reports or substantially reduced damage estimates after the reports were submitted. Those allegations attracted significant attention from policyholders, regulators, claims professionals, and the media.

The litigation also relates to Jeffrey and Virginia Rapkin, whose North Port home reportedly sustained roof damage during Hurricane Ian in 2022. The Rapkins sought to compel DFS to disclose records connected with its investigation of the adjusters' allegations. Mandell and Lee later intervened and requested access to more than 800 pages, proposing that the documents could remain sealed from the public and be governed by a confidentiality order.

Heritage, Florida Peninsula, and Edison opposed disclosure, maintaining that portions of the regulatory records contained proprietary information protected as trade secrets. Leon County Circuit Judge Jonathan Sjostrom ordered DFS to provide the sealed records to Mandell and Lee, the requestor-intervenors, subject to confidentiality restrictions. The insurers then sought appellate review.

Key Holding: Protected Status Must Be Decided First

The First District concluded that the circuit court did not follow the sequence required by Florida's insurance trade-secret statute. Under section 624.4213(2), properly marked and certified records may not be released pending the outcome of a circuit-court action filed within the statute's 30-day deadline.

According to the appellate court, the trial court had not made the required exemption determination before ordering production. Although the circuit judge conducted an initial in camera review outside the public courtroom, the appellate court found that the process did not resolve the trade-secret claims before the requesting parties were allowed access and participation in discovery.

The procedural distinction is significant. A court may conduct a sufficiently detailed in camera review or hold an appropriate hearing to determine whether particular information qualifies for protection. What it may not do is disclose the contested information to the requesters and permit their full participation before resolving the exemption. Once allegedly proprietary information is disclosed, later restrictions may not fully restore its confidentiality.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The November 4, 2026 opinion—expressly marked not final until disposition of any timely authorized rehearing motion—does not rule that any disputed record is a trade secret or otherwise exempt. Based on the reported decision, the First District focused on procedure rather than making a document-by-document determination. The circuit court must still evaluate the asserted protection and determine whether each disputed record, or separable portion of a record, satisfies the statute.

Likewise, the ruling does not resolve the underlying allegations concerning changes to field-adjuster reports, the merits of the Rapkins' insurance claim, or whether DFS's investigation was adequate. Those questions remain distinct from the disclosure dispute.

Impact on Public Adjusters and Claims Professionals

For public adjusters, the ruling illustrates why regulatory records may be difficult to obtain even when they could illuminate broader claims-handling practices. A carrier's trade-secret designation can require separate judicial review, extending the timetable and narrowing the information ultimately disclosed.

The decision also reinforces the importance of developing evidence from sources independent of regulatory production. Claim files, photographs, inspection notes, estimates, communications, metadata, payment histories, deposition testimony, and properly preserved versions of adjuster reports may provide direct evidence regarding an individual loss without depending exclusively on contested DFS records.

Independent and public adjusters should preserve their original work product in accordance with applicable law and professional obligations. If an estimate or report later appears in materially different form, contemporaneous records may help establish what was observed, documented, and transmitted. Adjusters should avoid assuming that every post-submission revision is improper; changes may have legitimate explanations, and the facts must be evaluated claim by claim.

Practical Takeaways

• Trade-secret assertions are not necessarily final. The submitting party must comply with section 624.4213(1)-(2), and it bears the burden of proving trade-secret status in court.
• Confidentiality orders do not replace the statutory review. Disclosure to a limited group may still be premature if protected status has not been decided.
• Requests should be narrowly drafted. Identifying specific categories, dates, claims practices, or data fields may make judicial review more manageable.
• Segregation may matter. Courts may need to consider whether protected details can be redacted while nonexempt portions are produced.
• Preserve original claim evidence. Contemporaneous photographs, estimates, notes, and transmissions can become critical when later documents differ.
• Do not confuse procedure with exoneration. The appellate ruling concerns disclosure mechanics and does not decide the truth of the underlying claims-handling allegations.

How Louis Law Group Can Help

Disputes involving altered estimates, withheld claim materials, regulatory records, or unexplained reductions require careful analysis of both the policy and the evidentiary record. Louis Law Group represents Florida policyholders in property insurance disputes and works with public adjusters and other claims professionals to identify missing information, preserve evidence, and pursue available policy benefits.

If a residential or commercial property claim has been underpaid, delayed, or denied, contact Louis Law Group at (833) 657-4812 to discuss the circumstances and available options.

Source: First District Court of Appeal - Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Rapkin, Nos. 1D2026-1153 and 1D2026-1171 (Nov. 4, 2026)