Case Law Update: Heritage v. Rapkin and Trade-Secret Claim Records

Overview

A Florida appellate opinion in Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Rapkin addresses a recurring problem for policyholders and public adjusters: how to get records that show how an insurer actually handles claims. According to commentary from Chip Merlin at the Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog, the court held that records from an investigation into insurers' claim-handling practices cannot be shown to the people seeking them until a judge decides whether the records are exempt from disclosure.

The commentary describes this as a procedural win for the insurers. It also stresses a limit: the insurers did not win a ruling on the underlying question of whether the records are in fact protected. This article is based on that commentary. The full opinion should be read before it is cited or relied on.

Background: Why These Records Matter

Claim-handling investigations can produce information that is useful to policyholders. Examples include how an insurer trains adjusters, how it applies internal guidelines, and how it evaluates and pays similar losses. When a regulator or other investigating body collects those materials, insurers often say they contain confidential business information or trade secrets.

The tension is plain. Insurers have a legitimate interest in protecting competitively sensitive material. Policyholders and their advocates have an equally legitimate interest in understanding whether claims are being handled consistently and in good faith. The question in this kind of dispute is often when and by whom the exemption question gets decided, not just whether an exemption applies.

Key Holding as Reported

As summarized in the source commentary, the holding has two parts:

• Sequence matters. The records may not be shown to the requesting parties before a judge decides whether they are exempt from disclosure.
• The merits are still open. The insurers prevailed on the procedural point. The commentary says they did not obtain a ruling that their records are in fact protected as trade secrets or otherwise exempt.

The practical effect is a gatekeeping step. The court must make an exemption determination first, and disclosure follows only if the records are found not to be exempt. The excerpt available to us does not set out every detail of the opinion's reasoning, so readers should consult the decision for the exact scope of the ruling.

The Question the Commentary Raises

The title of the commentary asks the right follow-up: is anyone checking what the shield covers? A procedural rule that delays disclosure is only as strong as the exemption claim behind it. Once a court takes up the exemption question, the party asserting protection will need to justify it.

In practice, that makes the scope of the claimed protection important. Broad, categorical assertions that an entire body of claim-handling records is confidential are harder to defend than narrow, document-specific ones. A judge deciding exemption can separate material that truly warrants protection from material that simply reflects how claims are handled.

Impact on Public Adjusters

For public adjusters and claims professionals, the opinion does not close the door on access to claim-handling information. It affects timing and process. Several points follow.

1. Expect Delay, Not Necessarily Denial

If you or your client are seeking claim-handling investigation records, expect the insurer to invoke the opinion to hold back production until exemption is adjudicated. That is a different outcome from permanent withholding.

2. Challenge Breadth of the Exemption Claim

Because the exemption decision is left to a judge, the scope of what is claimed matters. Requests framed around specific categories of records may be easier to evaluate than sweeping ones. Insurers should be expected to explain why particular records qualify.

3. Do Not Treat This as a Merits Ruling

The commentary is explicit that the insurers did not win a ruling that the records are protected. Avoid statements to clients or carriers suggesting that claim-handling records are now categorically confidential in Florida. That is not what the reported holding says.

4. Build Your File From Sources You Already Control

Even when outside records are delayed, much of what proves inconsistent claim handling is in your own file: the policy, the carrier's estimate, scope revisions, communications, timelines and payment history. Careful documentation remains the strongest foundation for a supplemental claim, appraisal demand or later dispute.

Practical Takeaways

• Read the opinion itself. This summary rests on secondary commentary and an excerpt. Confirm the court's reasoning and scope before relying on it.
• Anticipate the procedural objection. If a records request touches claim-handling investigations, plan for the insurer to argue that disclosure must wait for a judicial exemption ruling.
• Narrow your requests. Specific, well-defined requests tied to a particular claim issue are easier for a court to evaluate than broad ones.
• Preserve the timeline. Delays in obtaining outside records do not extend policy deadlines. Keep notice, proof-of-loss, supplemental claim and suit-limitation dates calendared independently.
• Document inconsistencies in real time. Contemporaneous notes on how the carrier handled your specific claim will matter regardless of how the records dispute resolves.

Why This Matters Beyond One Case

Disputes over access to insurer records are likely to continue as policyholders seek evidence about claim-handling practices. A rule that requires a judge to rule on exemption first gives insurers a procedural tool. It also gives courts a defined point at which to test the underlying protection claim. How that test is applied will shape how much visibility policyholders and their advocates have into carrier practices.

The commentary's closing question, whether anyone is checking what the shield covers, is a useful reminder. Procedural protection is not the same as substantive protection. Advocates should be prepared to press the exemption question when it is decided.

How Louis Law Group Can Help

Louis Law Group represents Florida policyholders in property insurance disputes, including denied, underpaid and delayed claims. If a carrier is withholding information, disputing scope or valuation, or handling your client's claim inconsistently, our attorneys can review the file, identify the deadlines that control, and advise on the strongest path forward, whether that is a supplemental claim, appraisal, or litigation.

Public adjusters and claims professionals are welcome to contact us to discuss a pending matter. Call (833) 657-4812 to speak with our team.

This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. It is based on secondary commentary and should be verified against the full court opinion.

Source: Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog (Chip Merlin) - Insurers’ Trade-Secret Shield Just Got Stronger. Is Anyone Checking What It Covers?