Archive for the 'PA – Work Product' Category

BAD FAITH CLAIM BIFURCATED AND STAYED; REQUEST TO DEPOSE INSURER’S COUNSEL QUASHED AS COVERAGE COUNSEL COMMUNICATING WITH INSURED IS COMMONPLACE AND DOES NOT MAKE COUNSEL A FACT WITNESS (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this first-party property damage case, Judge Conner addressed a motion to sever and stay a bad faith claim, as well as a motion for a protective order to quash the deposition of the carrier’s coverage counsel, who was also defending the breach of contract and bad faith action.

Motion to Sever and Stay Results in Bifurcation and Stay

Judge Conner first noted the difference between a Rule 21 motion to sever and stay, and a Rule 42 motion to bifurcate, observing that severance results in two separate and distinct actions, resulting in separate judgments. In this case, the insurer had moved to sever, but also included in its motion bifurcation as a form of relief.

“Severance is appropriate when the claims are ‘discrete and separate,’ each capable of resolution without dependence or effect on the other.” Factors include whether the two claims will require different evidentiary proof, judicial economy, and party prejudice. Judge Conner observed the wealth of case law addressing severance and bifurcation in insurance bad faith cases, but noting that the cases go both ways.

As in other cases, the insurer here argued, “irreparable prejudice from premature and potentially unnecessary disclosure of otherwise privileged information, inefficiency in litigating a secondary claim of bad faith that may be mooted by resolution of the coverage claim, and jury confusion and the potential loss of [the insurer’s] chosen counsel if the claims proceed together.”

  1. The court agreed that the breach of contract claim and bad faith claim are separate and distinct, with only minor overlap. For example, “[i]nformation concerning how [the insurer] investigated and evaluated the coverage claim, its claims-handling policies, and its attorney and personnel communications regarding denial of coverage … are simply immaterial to the issue of whether coverage is required under the policy.”

  2. The court also found the prejudice element favored the insurer’s position. The insurer focused on revealing its attorneys’ advice, opinions and strategy as providing an undue advantage in the insured’s contract case, where such information would not otherwise be discoverable. The insured focused on increased litigation expenses.

Judge Conner found “that although both parties have proffered potential prejudice, [the insurer’s] likely injury from denying separation of these claims outweighs the possible increased costs identified by [the insured]. As [the insurer] correctly notes, attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are long-held, venerated components of our legal system. …. Such protections are not absolute, but they should not be disregarded lightly. We do not dismiss [the insured’s] legitimate concern regarding litigation costs, but ultimately conclude that this factor also favors [the insurer].”

  1. On the judicial economy element, the court rejected the notion that a ruling denying coverage would moot the bad faith claim; instead observing that a bad faith claim can exist independently of a coverage denial. [Note: As recently reiterated on this Blog, there is a longstanding issue as to whether statutory bad faith can be pursued in Pennsylvania simply for poor claims handling, if there is no benefit due under the policy.] The court also rejected the notion that the likelihood of more complex discovery disputes if both actions are litigated together requires severance.

After weighing all factors, Judge Conner chose to bifurcate, rather than sever; and to stay discovery on the bad faith claim. He recognized other courts had ruled differently in insurance bad faith cases, but highlighted the fact that each case is unique, that judges have broad discretion, and that in “this” case bifurcation and stay were warranted.

Court denies insured’s request to depose the insurer’s counsel

The insured sought to depose the insurer’s defense counsel in the case, who was also involved in the underlying coverage dispute. The insurer moved to quash the deposition. As the only pending case was now the breach of contract claim, Judge Conner viewed the issue through that prism.

The insured argued that counsel acted as a claim investigator, and was thus a fact witness. However, it offered no support for that position. It sought to depose counsel to obtain his: “’thoughts and reasoning as to why certain information was or was not included in the denial letters,’ knowledge of the cause and extent of the loss, and reasons why ‘certain information was disregarded” and the claim ultimately denied.’” The court found this “either irrelevant to the breach of contract claim, privileged, discoverable through other means, or a combination thereof.”

“Furthermore, that [the insurer’s counsel] authored letters denying coverage and setting forth [the insurer’s] reasons for its denial has no bearing on whether his deposition is necessary on the breach of contract claim. The practice of insurers consulting with their attorney regarding coverage and having their attorney communicate with the insured is quite commonplace and does not transform [coverage counsel] into a fact witness.”

The court further recognized the potential issue that the deposition could result in counsel’s disqualification. This was another reason to quash the deposition in connection with the contract claim. Judge Conner did leave the door open for the insured to reassert its request to depose counsel in the bad faith case.

Dated: July 25, 2019

McFarland, LP v. Harford Mutual Insurance Cos., U. S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-1664, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124038 (M.D. Pa. July 25, 2019) (Conner, J.)

Our thanks to Dan Cummins of the excellent Tort Talk Blog for bringing this case to our attention.

DISCOVERY IN BAD FAITH CASE: (1) RESERVES DISCOVERABLE; (2) MENTAL IMPRESSIONS NOT DISCOVERABLE; (3) TRADE SECRET OBJECTIONS CANNOT STAND ABSENT APPROPRIATE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this bad faith action, Eastern District Judge Slomsky addressed three disputed discovery issues: (1) reserves; (2) claim adjuster work product; and (3) trade secrets.

Reserves are Discoverable

District courts within the Third Circuit are split on whether reserves are discoverable in bad faith cases. In this action, Judge Slomsky stood with those judges who find reserves relevant and discoverable.

Work Product Privilege not Eviscerated Simply by Bringing a Bad Faith Action

On the other hand, he refused to require production of a claim adjuster’s mental impressions simply because it was a bad faith case. As the court states: “In essence, Plaintiff’s sole argument to compel production of [the adjuster’s] mental impressions is that [the mental impressions] are relevant merely because this case contains a bad faith claim. It is well-settled that this argument is insufficient to disregard the work-product privilege set forth in Rule 26.”

Trade Secret Objections Fail When (1) Insurer Does not Move for Protective Order, and (2) Does not Lay Out Nature of Trade Secrets in Opposing Motion to Compel

The insurer made redactions to document production based on trade secret objections. The court first observed that Pennsylvania Civil Rule 4012 governed this trade secrets issue, rather than the Federal Rules. The interpreted Pa.R.C.P. 4012 to require a party objecting on this basis to bring a motion for a protective order in the first instance, which the insurer did not do in this case. The court then observed that the insurer failed to address the insured’s arguments against the presence of trade secret protections, which could have been done without revealing any trade secrets. Still, after granting the motion to compel on this issue, the court gave leave for the insurer to file an “appropriate” motion for a protective order.

Date of Decision: July 16, 2019

Penn-Dion Corp. v. Great American Insurance Co. of N.Y., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-4634, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117635, 2019 WL 3202503 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2019) (Slomsky, J.)

COURT ADDRESSES DISCOVERY RE: (1) RESERVES (2) OTHER CLAIMS/DISPUTES; (3) CLAIM LOGS; (4) CLAIM STATUS REPORTS; (5) POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUALS; (6) EMPLOYEE INCENTIVES; (7) ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION/WORK PRODUCT; AND (8) OVERBROAD DISCOVERY LANGUAGE (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This case addresses a number of discovery issues in this first party benefit denial breach of contract and bad faith case.

RESERVES (BAD FAITH ON COVERAGE VS. REFUSAL TO SETTLE/VALUE DISPUTES)

Magistrate Judge Carlson observed courts in the Third Circuit are split on whether reserves are discoverable in bad faith cases. He first states that when the bad faith case is about a failure to settle or dispute over a claim’s value, the prevailing view is that reserves are discoverable. “However, when the bad faith claim is based on a denial of coverage and ‘does not involve the value of the claim or [the plaintiff’s] estimation of liability… the reserve information requested is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

The alleged bad faith in this case is based on denying coverage through a biased and unfair review process, and not a dispute over value. Thus, reserves are irrelevant to the bad faith claim, and production is not required.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELEVANT OR DISCOVERABLE

The alleged basis of the bad faith claim was that the insurer intentionally used a biased peer review organization and doctor to terminate plaintiff’s medical benefits unfairly. Plaintiff served interrogatories concerning virtually all matters in which the same PRO and doctor were selected by the insurer. Magistrate Judge Carlson did not permit this discovery.

The court first looked at prior case law denying discovery on the issue of the size of an adjuster’s case load, finding it both irrelevant and of marginal utility compared to the burden imposed on the insurer to make production. In the present case, Magistrate Judge Carlson found that “the number of times that this PRO and/or doctor decided in favor of the insurer, whether on initial review or on reconsideration, will not necessarily speak to any such bias.” If, e.g., a PRO found for the insurer 98 out of a 100 times, “those 98 claims may very well have been legitimately decided on their merits, which could not be known without an extensive post hoc evaluation of the merits of each claim.”

The court was not going to carry out that kind of evaluation, and observed that “courts in this circuit have held that ‘discovery of other insureds’ claims in bad faith cases is generally improper, as such information is irrelevant.”

ADDITIONAL RULINGS ON CLAIMS LOGS, CLAIMS STATUS REPORTS, ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, OVERBROAD DISCOVERY LANGUAGE, EMPLOYEE INCENTIVES, AND POLICY/PROCEDURE MANUALS

Magistrate Judge Carlson made the following additional points and rulings:

  1. Magistrate Judges have broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes.

  2. Plaintiff alleged there was a biased peer review process used to deny medical benefits. The court found the portions of the insurer’s policy manuals on the peer review process, and employee procedures or policies for handling inquiries about insurance policies, must be produced.

  3. A request for “all communications of any nature whatsoever” concerning the complaint are vague and overbroad, as are requests for communications regarding “any matters raised by Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ initial disclosures”.

  4. The work product doctrine kicked in when plaintiff’s counsel wrote to the insurer expressing dissatisfaction with the outcome of the PRO process. Actual suit or even the threat of suit are not required to trigger the insurer’s anticipation of litigation. Thus, claim notes created after the date of that letter received work product protection, but claim notes before that date had to be produced.

  5. Claim log entries indicating an employee simply looked at the file or generically uploaded a document are not protected work product.

  6. The insurer was required to respond to an interrogatory asking for “the nature and amount of any employee incentive to close out insureds’ claims”.

Date of Decision: February 6, 2019

Barnard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Corp., U. S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania Civil No. 3:18-CV-01218, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18660 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2019) (Carlson, M.J.)

SEPTEMBER 2018 BAD FAITH CASES: RESERVES DISCOVERABLE IN BAD FAITH ACTION; WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION DOES NOT ARISE WITH MERE SUGGESTION OF LITIGATION (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This discovery dispute arose in a UIM bad faith case over the insurer’s seeking to reduce benefits after taking the position it had overpaid for lost income.

The insurer refused to produce claims file materials based on the work product doctrine. These included (1) employee mental impressions and opinions about the claim and (2) reserve information. The court ordered the parties to meet and to try and reach agreement on the date the insurer reasonably anticipated litigation. If any document remained in dispute, these would be considered for in camera review. The insurer ultimately submitted redacted and unredacted claim filed documents to the court, and an annotated privilege log identifying the disputed documents.

Among other things, the court observed that “discovery disputes involving an insurance company’s claims file often present problems for the parties because the ordinary course of an insurer’s business involves evaluating its policyholder’s claims.” It stated that “The temporal trigger for work product protection in this context is the point in its investigation an insurance company’s activity shifts from mere claims evaluation to an anticipation of litigation.” The burden is on the insurer to “demonstrate that it subjectively anticipated litigation, and that the anticipation was objectively reasonable.”

The court rejected the notion that protected was triggered when the insured’s lawyer told the carrier he wanted to discuss the case to avoid litigation. “[A] lawyer’s mere suggestion of a lawsuit is not enough to make an insurer reasonably anticipate litigation when the insurer’s evaluation of the claim is ongoing.” In this case, the ongoing claim payments indicated the evaluation process was continuing even after this statement.

The court next found there was no per se standard under the controlling federal rules barring discovery of reserves under the work product doctrine. It further noted that prior Pennsylvania state law, relied on by the carrier, left open the issue of whether reserves were discoverable in bad faith cases. The court added that the insurer did not provide factual support that the reserves were prepared in anticipation of litigation.

[See this blog post discussing discovery and reserves.]

Date of Decision: August 22, 2018

Neidich v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-5375, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142445 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2018) (Padova, J.)

 

 

OCTOBER 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: COURT ADDRESSES A WIDE RANGE OF BAD FAITH DISCOVERY ISSUES AS TO PRIVILEGE, WORK PRODUCT, AND RESERVES (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This is a discovery opinion addressing a wide range of issues including the attorney client privilege, work product doctrine and discovery of reserves. A number of rulings were held in abeyance pending in camera review, which are not addressed below

1.        The attorney client privilege is not limited to claims handler communications with outside counsel.

“This Court is not aware of any authority that limits the attorney-client privilege to communications with outside counsel, as opposed to in-house counsel, and Plaintiff has cited none. Therefore, this Court rejects Plaintiffs’ claim that the attorney-client privilege could not have attached before Attorney McDonnell was retained as outside counsel to handle Plaintiffs’ claim.”

2.         The privilege is not abrogated simply because a document is relevant to a bad faith claim.

“Plaintiffs next assert that the documents listed in the privilege log titled ‘Communications with counsel regarding the value and merits of claim’ are not privileged because they “go to the heart of this bad faith action[.]” (ECF No. 20 at 8.) However, as Defendant notes, the Third Circuit has unequivocally held that ‘[r]elevance is not the standard for determining whether or not evidence should be protected from disclosure as privileged, and that remains the case even if one might conclude the facts to be disclosed are vital, highly probative, directly relevant or even go to the heart of an issue.’ Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 864 (3d Cir. 1994). Moreover, ‘[a] party does not lose the privilege to protect attorney client communications from disclosure in discovery when his or her state of mind is put in issue in the action.’ Id. Thus, while Plaintiffs are correct that these communications ‘go to the heart’ of Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim, this fact does not change the analysis of whether these communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege.

3.     Documents prepared by claims adjusters and sent to attorneys are privileged.

“Plaintiffs also claim that ‘communications made by the claims representatives are not immune from discovery.’ This argument is easily dismissed. ‘[T]he attorney-client privilege operates in a two-way fashion to protect confidential client-to-attorney or attorney-to-client communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing professional legal advice.’ The fact that the documents were prepared by the claims adjusters, rather than the attorney to whom the documents were sent, is immaterial to the analysis of whether those documents are protected under the attorney-client privilege.”

4.         Reserves discoverable in bad faith action.

The court found reserve information discoverable in bad faith cases. It wrote the following in explaining its position:

“There is competing treatment of whether reserve information is discoverable in a bad faith lawsuit.” Shaffer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 1:13-CV-01837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30436, 2014 WL 931101, at *2 (M.D. Pa. 2014). “Some courts have noted a ‘tenuous link between reserves and actual liability given that numerous considerations factor into complying with this statutory directive.'” Sharp, 2014 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 282, 2014 WL 8863084 at *8, quoting Fidelity & Deposit Co., 168 F.R.D. at 525 (citing Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., 139 F.R.D. 609, 613 (E.D. Pa. 1991)). However, as a court of common pleas recently stated:

Several trial courts, including this court, have reasoned that insurance reserves are discoverable in bad faith litigation against insurers, where liability for the underlying claim has already been established, since such information may be relevant to the issue of whether the insurer acted in bad faith in failing to settle or pay the original claim. See Consugar v. Nationwide Insurance Co. of America, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61756, 2011 WL 2360208, at * 5 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (‘Since plaintiff here claims that defendant acted [*19]  in bad faith, a comparison between the reserve value of the claim and defendant’s actions in processing plaintiff’s claim could shed light on defendant’s potential liability.’); North River Ins. Co. [v. Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co.], 872 F. Supp. [1411] at 1412 [(E.D. Pa. 1995)] (finding reserve information “relevant to the question of whether or not [the insurer] acted in bad faith during the pre-trial settlement negotiations.”); McAndrew v. Donegal Mutual Ins. Co., 56 Pa. D. & C. 4th 1, 18 (Lacka. Co. 2002); Fretz v. Mutual Benefit Ins. Co., 37 Pa. D. & C. 4th 173, 180 (Alleg. Co. 1998). Sharp, 2014 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 282, 2014 WL 8863084 at *8.”

5.     Reserves concerning insured’s claim are discoverable, but reserves concerning other claims are not, and court will not indulge fishing expedition on setting reserves for other claims.

“Defendant’s boilerplate responses also contend that Plaintiffs’ requests are overly broad. … This Court disagrees with Defendant’s contention in regards to Interrogatory No. 5, in which Plaintiffs’ seek information regarding the reserve history for [the insured’s] own claim. Because the gist of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that Defendant acted in bad faith in handling [the insured’s] underinsured motorists claim, Plaintiffs’ request for the reserve history for [her] claim is not overly broad.”

“However, this Court agrees with Defendant that RPD No. 4 is overly broad. While Plaintiffs have demonstrated the relevancy of the reserve amounts for [the insured’s] own claim, Plaintiffs have not shown — nor even argued in their Motion to Compel — that reserve information for other insureds is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim. Therefore, Defendant will only be required to produce any relevant documentation of the reserve history for [the insured’s] claim.”

“RPD No. 4 asks for “all documents relating to or involving the process used from 2011 to the present in setting or otherwise establishing or determining reserves for underinsured motorists claims.” (ECF No. 20-2 at 4.) However, neither Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel nor Defendant’s Brief in Opposition contain any argument concerning whether or not discovery of Defendant’s reserve process for other insureds is appropriate. In other words, neither party addresses the issue of whether RPD No. 4 seeks documents that are outside of the context of Plaintiffs’ specific claim. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ ask for discovery of reserve information for other claims, this Court declines the invitation to allow Plaintiffs to embark on a fishing expedition.”

6.       Work product doctrine not applicable to reserve information in this case.

“The only other objection that Defendant has put forth is its boilerplate response that the information requested by RPD No. 4 and Interrogatory No. 5 ‘is protected from discovery by the work-product doctrine.’ … However, Defendant’s threadbare and conclusory invocations of the work product doctrine fail to establish that Defendant is entitled to the privilege it asserts. Moreover, Defendant does not even argue in its Brief in Opposition that this information is protected by the work-product doctrine. Further, according to the reserve history for [the insured’s] claim, the reserve values were set by non-attorneys. … In fact, Defendant has not asserted that the reserve amounts were set or altered at the direction of, or with the cooperation of, counsel. Therefore, Defendant has failed to establish that the information Plaintiffs seek is protected by the work-product doctrine.”

Date of Decision: October 2, 2017

Parisi v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-179, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162131 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2017) (Gibson, J.)

 

OCTOBER 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: BIFURCATION AND STAY OF BAD FAITH CLAIM DENIED ON ALL FOUR CRITERIA, INCLUDING SIMILARITY OF ISSUES, COMMON EVIDENCE, UNDUE EXPENSE TO THE INSURED, AND ABSENCE OF PREJUDICE (Middle District of Pennsylvania)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An underinsured motorist injured the insureds. The tortfeasor’s insurer ultimately tendered $15,000 to the insureds. The insureds’ own UIM policy contained maximum benefits of $100,000, or $200,000 with stacking. The insureds demanded full benefits under the policy.

After investigation, the insurer offered $10,000 to settle the UIM claim. The insureds filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas. The insurer removed the action to federal district court and filed a motion to dismiss. The Court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss. The insurer then filed a motion to bifurcate the bad faith claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.

In considering a party’s bifurcation motion, courts are careful to consider whether a stay would damage a party. Specifically, courts consider four factors in deciding a Rule 42 motion: “(1) whether the issues are significantly different from each other; (2) whether they require separate witnesses and documents; (3) whether the nonmoving party would be prejudiced by bifurcation; and (4) whether the moving party would be prejudiced if bifurcation is not granted.” The movant bears the burden to show that bifurcation is appropriate.

  1. First, the Court found that the claims are not “so profoundly different” as to justify bifurcation.

  2. The Court ruled that “both claims would utilize similar documents, such as the [insurer’s] claim file, relevant medical evidence . . ., and the [insurer’s] settlement attempts.” In addressing the insurer’s concerns on privileged materials pursuant to the attorney work-product doctrine, the Court ruled that the insurer failed to identify specific documents that enjoy such privilege. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the insurer is free to file such motions going forward in order to assert its privilege at any time.

  3. The Court held that the insured would suffer economically if the bad faith claim was stayed, because the insured would have to pay its attorney to do twice the work. “Bifurcation would require two discovery periods, double the dispositive motions, and double pre-trial motions.”

  4. Lastly, the Court held that the insurer would not be prejudiced were its motion to bifurcate be denied, because the insurer could simply defeat the bad faith claim by showing a reasonable basis for its settlement offer and investigatory conduct.

In conclusion, none of the four factors weighed in favor of bifurcation and the Court denied the motion to sever and stay the bad faith claim.

Date of Decision: September 18, 2017

Newhouse v. GEICO Cas. Co., No. 4:17-CV-00477, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150793 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2017) (Brann, J.)

FEBRUARY 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: INSURER BAD FAITH AT ISSUE IN EVALUATING SETTLEMENT PAYMENT; ADVICE OF COUNSEL NOT AT ISSUE UNLESS ASSERTED (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An insurer sued its appointed defense counsel in connection with counsel’s defense of a UIM claim. The insurer claimed that counsel failed to assure that the UIM arbitration panel was instructed on the limits of insurance ($2 million), and that the carrier was subjected to the risk of having to pay an excess arbitration award of nearly $4 million above policy limits.

The UIM plaintiff settled the claim with the carrier, which included receiving the full amount of the arbitration award above policy limits. Defense counsel asserted a defense of contributory negligence based on the insurer’s alleged bad faith handling of the UIM claim; and further argued that the settlement was not entirely for the $ 6 million arbitration award (to which sum it was identical), but included monetary consideration for the UIM plaintiff’s threatened bad faith claim as well.

The court granted partial summary judgment to strike the affirmative defense of contributory negligence, but only to the extent that this defense was based on the insurer’s conduct that was not causally related to the arbitration award. The court accepted counsel’s argument that part of the settlement payment was to get a release for the bad faith claim, and thus was part of the damages at issue.

Therefore, it would permit some discovery on the argument that the insurer acted in bad faith in handling the underlying UIM claim, and paid some portion of the settlement to address that issue.

Thus, the Court found that “the fact and extent of [the insurer’s] bad faith handling of the [UIM] claim and concomitant exposure to bad faith liability are directly relevant to the question of the amount of damages it sustained due to [defense counsel’s] conduct. If [the insurer] is successful on its malpractice claim, it will have to prove actual losses that it suffered as a result of Defendants’ negligence. Because [the insurer] did not pay the arbitration award directly, it cannot claim that the excess award is the damages it now seeks. However, if [the insurer] attempts to prove that the settlement payment constitutes actual losses proximately caused by Defendants’ negligence, it must also prove with reasonable certainty what portion of the settlement payment in excess of its policy limits was paid to satisfy the arbitration award. Discovery on [the insurer’s] exposure to bad faith liability is therefore relevant to the scope of damages [the insurer] alleges to have sustained. And because [the insurer’s] bad faith conduct affects the amount of damages sought, the Court will not preclude Defendants from pursuing discovery on … bad faith.”

Next, the court addressed discovery issues.

The carrier had argued that certain documents in its own files were subject to the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. In addition, defense counsel sought discovery of the files of the attorney that replaced him in the UIM case.

As to the second category, the court could not rule because the privilege log was inadequate. The privilege log “entries do not contain specific sender and recipient information, and the Attorney Work Product entries do not state the specific party who created the work product. Additionally, the descriptions are too vague to permit the Court to find that each element of the privilege claimed is satisfied. [The insurer] therefore must supplement its privilege log with this information in order for the Court to determine whether the documents are in fact privileged.”

As to the insurer’s own documents, the court found that the work product doctrine applied to claim notes containing the mental impressions and strategies of the insurer’s attorneys and representatives. These notes were authored by an attorney or claim handler of the insurer.

The insurer also sought to withhold documents that were sent by the defendant defense counsel to the insurer regarding post-arbitration strategy. The court found the attorney-client privilege waived once the insurer sued its attorney, and that the attorney himself held the work product privilege, not the insurer.

The court found the carrier did not waive the privilege concerning communications with in-house counsel, and with the outside counsel subsequently retained. The carrier had disclosed a limited privileged document, but the court found this did not constitute waiver of the privilege as to every communication with counsel.

The court further found that the insurer was not asserting an advice of counsel defense, which could waive the privilege. The court observed that “an attorney’s ‘[a]dvice is not in issue merely because it is relevant, and does not necessarily become in issue merely because the attorney’s advice might affect the client’s state of mind in a relevant manner.’”

“Rather, ‘[t]he advice of counsel is placed in issue where the client asserts a claim or defense, and attempts to prove that claim or defense by disclosing or describing an attorney client communication.’” Those circumstances were not present.

Date of Decision: January 20, 2017

N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Brady, No. 15-2236, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8268 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2017) (Caputo, J.)

DECEMBER 2016 BAD FAITH CASES: COURT REFUSES TO BIFURCATE UIM CONTRACT AND BAD FAITH CLAIMS, OR STAY BAD FAITH DISCOVERY WHERE INSURED RESISTED THE STAY AND WAS WILLING TO RISK POTENTIAL PREJUDICE TO THE INSURED HIMSELF DURING CONSOLIDATED DISCOVERY (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insurer sought to bifurcate the breach of contract and bad faith claims in this UIM case, and a stay of discovery on the bad faith claim. In its second bad faith opinion of the day, the court denied the motion as the factors concerning convenience to the parties, avoidance of prejudice, or efficiency did not warrant separation of the two claims or a stay on discovery. The details of the court’s decision are quoted, in part, below: “In commercial or property damage cases, there may be complexities that warrant bifurcation; however, this is a personal injury case arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The key issue in the breach of contract claim is damages and the principal basis of the bad faith claim is delay: neither is a complex issue.”

“[B]ifurcation is not warranted … because [the insurer] has not shown that the level of prejudice it will face from proceeding to one trial on both claims outweighs the detrimental effects of severance. First, we note that although … the issues in the two claims are distinct, they are not as dissimilar as [the insurer] contends.” In arguing that the contract claim focuses on determining damages and the bad faith claim on the insurer’s case evaluation, the insurer “fails to recognize that an evaluation of the reasonableness of an insurer’s investigation necessarily includes analysis of the documentation the insurer relied on in coming to its conclusion. Indeed, ‘[the insurer’s] investigation did not occur in a vacuum,’ and the facts regarding the underlying accident and its consequent damages are relevant to it.”

“There is considerable overlap in the evidentiary proof relevant to each claim. Analysis of both claims is likely to require testimony from [the insured], [his] treating physicians, and [the insurer’s] medical expert as well as documentation regarding the accident, [the insured’s] injuries and the damages he suffered. Although foreseeable additional witnesses for the bad faith claim are the [insured’s] personnel responsible for handling [the] claim, and counsel for either or both parties, it is likely that many witnesses, and much of their testimony, will be the same for both claims. It would be inconvenient and wasteful of judicial resources to require them to appear in two separate trials to testify on overlapping issues.”

The court distinguished two other cases because of the difference in the progress of discovery on the contract and bad faith claims; and because it was unclear in the present case if counsel would have to testify, because counsel’s role was not pivotal to the bad faith claims at issue.

Finally, the insurer contended “without citation to any authority, that separate trials and a stay on discovery in the bad faith claim is necessary in order to assuage the potential for prejudice to both parties in the discovery process.” It argued “that work product it generated in preparation for litigation of the contractual claim would be relevant and discoverable in the bad faith claim, forcing [it] to either forfeit its privilege or claim it and thereby hamper Plaintiff’s litigation of the bad faith claim.”

The court found this did not warrant staying the bad faith claim. “[T]he insurer’s privilege would ‘not disappear merely because work product prepared in anticipation of litigation over one claim may also be relevant to a second claim.’” “Rather, the insurer would simply have to ‘prove its entitlement to work product protection, . . . [a fact] that does not justify the necessary expenditure of judicial resources and time’ that severance would occasion.”

Moreover, “the party most at risk of prejudice under the instant circumstances is [the insured], and he opposes [the insurer’s] motion. By opposing severance, [he] takes the risk that he may be vulnerable to not obtaining documents [the insurer] would otherwise be willing to produce. [He] has chosen this course rather than go through ‘the time and expense of having to participate in two separate rounds of discovery (and inevitable motion practice) accompanied by two separate jury trials.’” The insured’s stance therefore weakened the carrier’s position that severance was necessary to prevent prejudice in the course of discovery.

Date of Decision: November 21, 2016

Zinno v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., No. 16-792, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161250 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2016) (Baylson, J.)

JUNE 2016 BAD FAITH CASES: COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN IN-HOUSE COUNSEL OF (1) TPA AND (2) AUHTORIZED CLAIM REPRESENTATIVE WITH INSURER USING THEIR SERVICES IS PRIVILEGED (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Heller’s Gas v. International Insurance Company of Hannover, a breach of contract and bad faith case, the insured claimed that documents withheld or redacted did not fall within the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or reserve information. The insured argued that all but one document was either sent to or from employees of the insurer’s third party administrator (TPA) or its authorized claim representative, and as neither of these entities were subsidiaries of or owned by the insurer, the communications were not privileged.

In the Answer, the insurer did not assert an agency relationship with either the TPA or the authorized claims representative. It took the opposite position in the motion papers, arguing that communications between the TPA’s in-house counsel and/or the claim representative’s in-house counsel with the insurer fell within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

The court reviewed the unredacted documents in camera. The court stated: “After thoroughly examining the documents, this Court finds that the information redacted appropriately falls within the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine and is consequently information directly related to or referencing legal strategy regarding the instant litigation. The correspondence further supports [the insurer’s] latterly-advanced argument that [the TPA and authorized claims representative] are essentially agents of [the insurer].”

Date of Decision: June 1, 2016

Heller’s Gas, Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co. of Hannover Ltd., 4:15-CV-01350, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71069 (M.D. Pa. June 1, 2016) (Brann, J.)

MARCH 2016 BAD FAITH CASES: NO STAY OF DISCOVERY ON BAD FAITH CLAIM; INSURED FAILED TO MAKE SUFFICIENT ARGUMENT AGAINST WORK-PRODUCT ASSERTION, BUT COURT DEFINES TIME AT WHICH REASONABLE ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION AROSE FOR WORK PRODUCT TO APPLY (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Wagner v. Allstate Insurance Company, an underinsured motorist case, the court (1) refused the insurer’s effort to stay the bad faith claim, but (2) rejected most of the insured’s discovery requests.  The issues were made less dramatic because the parties appeared to agree that the breach of contract and bad faith claims would not be tried simultaneously to the jury; rather the issues would be bifurcated for trial if necessary.

However, the insurer continued to press the issue that bad faith discovery should still be stayed, pending the outcome of the breach of contract trial, which would have prevented consecutive trials before the same jury – an argument the court rejected.

Stay of Bad Faith Claim

The insurer’s primary argument was that it would be prejudiced in allowing discovery on the bad faith claim, because it would putatively “have to forfeit protection for work product that it prepared in anticipation of litigating Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim because that information may be relevant to the bad faith claim (and therefore discoverable).”

However, the court observed that a “mere claim of bad faith is not enough to shatter the work-product privilege.” The only issue was then really whether the materials were work product or not, and the court did not believe there was a need to avoid its deciding those issues that merited a stay.

Rather, the only prejudice at issue was to the insured, because either (a) discovery on all issues would proceed and the insurer might put up a fight on discovery as to material it would otherwise turn over without objection, or (b) a stay of the bad faith claim would subject the insureds “to the time and expense of having to participate in two separate rounds of discovery (and inevitable motion practice) accompanied by two separate jury trials.”

“For Plaintiffs, neither alternative is free from hardship. By opposing [the insurer’s] request to stay the bad faith claim, the [insureds] have taken the position that the former represents the lesser of these two evils, and [the insurer], which bears the burden of demonstrating that separating the claims is proper, … has not shown otherwise.” The court also rejected the notion that the insurer’s victory on the breach of contract claim would moot the bad faith claim.

The court stated that even if that were to occur, the bad faith claim could proceed on the basis of alleged delays in evaluating or investigating the claim.

In sum, the stay was not needed to eliminate prejudice or promote economy. The court observed the different trends in granting/denying stays in Pennsylvania’s federal and state courts, but attributed this to the fact that bad faith is tried by a judge in state court, but a jury in federal courts.

Discovery Issues

The court then went on to address the work product issue, citing the Borgia case as summarizing the matter: “[a]n insurance company cannot reasonably argue that the entirety of its claims files are accumulated in anticipation of litigation when it has a duty to investigate, evaluate[,] and make a decision with respect to claims made on it by its insureds.  … This does not mean, however, that the work product doctrine is wholly inapplicable to insurers’ claims files. … Rather, [a]t some point in its investigation, . . . an insurance company’s activity shifts from mere claims evaluation to an anticipation of litigation.”

Thus, the insureds’ assertion that all of the insurer’s claims and investigations files were created in the ordinary course of business was untenable. Rather, “[w]hether Plaintiffs may be entitled to a subset of that information would hinge upon a fact-specific inquiry into the nature of the information that they seek, when [the insurer] reasonably anticipated litigation, Plaintiffs’ need for the particular information, and whether they can obtain the information through other means.”

The court observed this requires very specific arguments and typically the need for in camera review by the court of the documents at issue.  The insureds made no such arguments on this motion; nor did it address other non-work product arguments.  Their sole position appeared to be that there was no work product privilege in the first instance, and so this detail was not required.  Thus, the motion was denied, but without prejudice.

However, the court did go on to determine the date when the insurer reasonably anticipated litigation, thus providing resolution for the production of documents prior to that date.  This date occurred after the insureds first demand for policy limits, because the insurer had asked for certain additional information to be able to evaluate the claim and the demand.  It was only after receiving that information that litigation could have been reasonably anticipated.

Lastly, the court observed that even materials prepared after litigation was reasonably anticipated might be discoverable if the exceptions to work product protection could be established. Thus, if the insureds “are able to show that they have a substantial need for particular materials and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means, Plaintiffs may be permitted to obtain the discovery they seek, provided Plaintiffs are not seeking mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of [the insurer’s]  attorneys or other representatives.”

The court observed that deposition testimony from the insurer’s employees may be an alternative source of this information.

Date of Decision:  January 19, 2016

Wagner v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 5:14-cv-07326, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6364 (E.D. Pa. January 19, 2016) (Leeson, J.)