JULY 2008 BAD FAITH CASES
INSURED’S ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITH REGARD TO BAD FAITH SUIT (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Wirerope Works, Inc. v. Travelers Excess and Surplus Lines Company, plaintiff insured  filed a bad faith suit against the insurer with regard to the adjusting of plaintiff’s fire insurance claim.  The claim arose from a fire at a manufacturing facility.  The claim was settled in part, yet the insured sought additional damages.  The court permitted an extension in time for discovery in the hope that the parties would be able to discover what damages, if any, were in fact still due under the policy.

The court ordered the insured to provide answers to interrogatories, to produce documents, and to submit to a second deposition.  The insured failed to comply, and the court held that this failure to comply was primarily the fault of the insured’s counsel. Sanctions against the insured’s counsel were given, but the bad faith claim was permitted to proceed.

Date of Decision: May 14, 2008

Wirerope Works, Inc. v. Travelers Excess & Surplus,2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39469 (E.D. Pa. May 12, 2008)(Curtis Joyner, J.)

J.M.A.

0 Responses to “JULY 2008 BAD FAITH CASES
INSURED’S ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITH REGARD TO BAD FAITH SUIT (Philadelphia Federal)”


Comments are currently closed.