How have the petitioners been held responsible for procedural irregularities in their review of their petition?

We note petitioners' responsibility for various procedural irregularities which have made difficult this court's review of their petition. Most notably, while they seem to be arguing for a general rule that an insurer's "claims file" is always privileged as an attorney-client communication or as an attorney's work product, or both, they failed to provide this court with the catalogue and itemized objections which were before the trial court. ⁶ As held by the court in Lemelle v. Superior Court (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 148, 156, 143 Cal.Rptr. 450: [143 Cal.App.3d 443] " ' "A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown." ' (Original italics.) [Citations.]"