JULY 2008 BAD FAITH CASES
SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL INSURER’S TRAINING DOCUMENTS DENIED BECAUSE COURT FOUND DOCUMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insured filed a second motion to compel the insurer to produce certain training documents. The insured filed a bad faith claim against the insurer and now seeks to obtain materials related to training that the insurer provided to its claims department representatives concerning bad faith insurance practices, insurance litigation in general, and privacy rights.  The insurer objected to the production on the grounds of attorney client privilege.

The court found that the documents are privileged because the insurer’s  in-house attorneys prepared the materials for the purpose of answering their clients questions concerning how statutes and court decisions in the areas of bad faith, insurance litigation and privacy affect the way the insurer handles the claim.  The materials are communications from an attorney to a client that reflect communications from the client to the attorney for the purpose of securing an opinion of law.

Therefore the court denied the insured’s second motion to compel production of these documents.

Date of Decision:  March 25, 2008

Santer v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 6-1863, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23364 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24,2008) (Golden, J.)

J.M.A.

 

0 Responses to “JULY 2008 BAD FAITH CASES
SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL INSURER’S TRAINING DOCUMENTS DENIED BECAUSE COURT FOUND DOCUMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (Philadelphia Federal)”


Comments are currently closed.