Case Law Update: Trade-Secret Records Shielded in Heritage Dispute

Florida Appeals Court Restricts Disclosure of Insurer Records

A Florida appellate court has blocked, at least temporarily, the disclosure of financial and business records claimed as trade secrets by Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Florida Peninsula Insurance Company, and Edison Insurance Company. The decision arose from litigation seeking records held by the Florida Department of Financial Services concerning allegations that insurers altered field adjusters’ damage estimates after Hurricane Ian.

The First District Court of Appeal concluded that the circuit court authorized disclosure before completing the procedure required by section 624.4213, Florida Statutes. The decision does not establish that every disputed record is a trade secret or permanently prevent disclosure. Instead, it requires the trial court to determine whether the claimed statutory exemption applies before requestors receive the records or participate fully in discovery concerning them.

Background of the Records Dispute

The litigation traces back to allegations made publicly in 2022 by independent claims adjusters, including Ben Mandell and Jordan Lee. The adjusters alleged that certain Florida insurers had changed field reports and reduced damage estimates submitted in connection with residential property claims. Those allegations drew substantial attention following Hurricane Ian, which caused widespread property damage across Florida.

Jeffrey and Virginia Rapkin became involved in related litigation after Hurricane Ian reportedly damaged the roof of their North Port home. In early 2026, the Rapkins asked a Leon County circuit judge to require DFS to disclose records associated with the agency’s investigation of the adjusters’ allegations. Mandell and Lee later joined the proceeding and sought access to more than 800 pages of records.

The requestors proposed that the materials could remain sealed and be governed by a confidentiality order rather than released publicly. Heritage opposed disclosure, and Florida Peninsula and Edison joined the dispute, contending that the records included proprietary material that could provide competitors or others with commercially valuable information.

On March 26, 2026, the circuit court ordered that the sealed records be provided to the requestor-intervenors, Mandell and Lee, subject to a confidentiality order. The insurers petitioned for certiorari review, arguing that confidentiality restrictions did not cure the failure to decide whether the records were legally exempt from disclosure as trade secrets.

The First DCA’s Key Holding

The First DCA focused on the sequence mandated by section 624.4213. Under subsection (2), when documents are marked and certified as trade secrets and the submitting person timely files the required circuit-court action within 30 days after notice of a public-records request, the office or department may not release them pending the action’s outcome.

The appellate court determined that the trial court departed from that sequence. Although the circuit judge conducted an initial in camera review outside the public courtroom, the judge did not make a sufficient determination concerning which records, if any, qualified for the statutory exemption. Nevertheless, the court ordered production to the requestors and permitted their participation in discovery.

The appellate court explained that the circuit court could resolve the exemption through a confidentiality-preserving evidentiary hearing that does not disclose the records to those seeking them, rather than relying exclusively on an in camera review. What the trial court could not do was give the requestors access to the contested records before determining whether the material was exempt.

What the Decision Does—and Does Not—Decide

The ruling is primarily procedural. It establishes that a confidentiality order is not a substitute for the threshold analysis required by the trade-secret statute. Even when records will remain sealed, disclosure to litigants may expose information that the Legislature intended to protect until a court rules on its status.

At the same time, the decision expressly takes no position on whether any disputed record is a trade secret or otherwise exempt. The circuit court must still evaluate the disputed materials and decide whether the statutory requirements are satisfied. Depending on that analysis, some records could remain protected while others could become subject to disclosure under appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, claims professionals and policyholders should avoid reading the decision as a ruling on whether the underlying accusations against any insurer are true. The appellate court addressed access to investigative records, not the ultimate merits of the allegations regarding claim-estimate changes.

Why the Trade-Secret Statute Matters

Section 624.4213 has long affected efforts to obtain insurer information maintained by Florida regulators. Insurers may claim trade-secret protection for certain commercially sensitive records, including information concerning business operations, policy concentrations, premiums, geographic exposure, or particular lines of business. The precise status of any record depends on its contents and the governing statutory requirements; merely labeling information proprietary should not end the judicial inquiry.

The Heritage dispute highlights the tension between two legitimate interests. Policyholders, adjusters, and the public may seek transparency concerning claims practices and regulatory investigations. Insurers, meanwhile, may have a legally protected interest in preventing competitors from obtaining confidential business information. When the submitting party timely files the action required by section 624.4213(2), the circuit court must resolve the claimed exemption before the office or department releases the records.

Impact on Public Adjusters and Claims Professionals

For public adjusters and other claims professionals, the ruling demonstrates that obtaining regulatory or insurer records can involve a separate exemption proceeding before the underlying information becomes available. The party asserting trade-secret status bears the burden of proving it, and the court must resolve that status before ordering disclosure.

The decision also reinforces the importance of developing claim evidence independently. When an insurer’s internal or regulatory records are unavailable, the policyholder’s own file may become especially significant. Public adjusters should preserve contemporaneous photographs, measurements, scope notes, estimates, communications, weather information, and prior versions of reports. Those materials may help establish what damage was observed, how the loss was evaluated, and whether the insurer’s final coverage position differs materially from the field investigation.

Claims professionals should also maintain clear version histories. If an estimate, report, or scope changes, the file should identify who made the change, when it occurred, and the factual basis for it. Careful documentation protects both policyholders and professionals and reduces reliance on records that may later be contested as confidential.

Practical Takeaways

• Expect a threshold exemption decision. If the submitting party timely files the action required by section 624.4213(2), a court must determine trade-secret status before contested records are released.
• A protective order may not be enough. Sealing documents or restricting their use does not eliminate the statutory requirement that exempt status be decided first.
• Trade-secret claims are not necessarily conclusive. The party seeking protection must rely on the applicable law and evidence, and the court must evaluate the claim.
• Request narrow categories where possible. Targeted requests may make it easier to distinguish genuinely proprietary information from nonexempt claim-handling or regulatory material.
• Build the property-claim record early. Preserve photographs, estimates, reports, correspondence, and each material revision rather than depending on later access to an insurer’s internal files.
• Do not confuse a disclosure ruling with a merits ruling. The First DCA’s decision concerns the process for reviewing records; it does not resolve the underlying factual allegations.

What Happens Next

The disputed records cannot be produced under the procedure previously authorized. The circuit court must first conduct the exemption analysis required by Florida law. That process must use a confidentiality-preserving in camera inspection or an evidentiary hearing that does not disclose the records to those seeking them.

The resulting decision could separate exempt trade secrets from records that may lawfully be disclosed. Further litigation is also possible regarding particular documents, redactions, or the sufficiency of evidence offered to support the insurers’ claims.

How Louis Law Group Can Help

Disputes involving altered estimates, incomplete claim files, regulatory records, and asserted confidentiality protections can complicate an already difficult property insurance claim. Louis Law Group represents Florida policyholders in residential and commercial property disputes and works with public adjusters and other claims professionals to evaluate coverage positions, preserve evidence, pursue appropriate discovery, and challenge improper claim decisions.

If an insurer has reduced, delayed, or denied your property damage claim—or if access to critical claim information has become disputed—contact Louis Law Group at (833) 657-4812 to discuss the circumstances and available legal options.

Source: Claims Journal - Florida Appeals Court Bars Release of ‘Trade Secret’ Info in Heritage Claims Litigation