NOVEMBER 2018 BAD FAITH CASES: COMMON INTEREST DOCTRINE BARS DISCOVERY OF POST-VERDICT COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN INSURED’S COUNSEL AND UNDERLYING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN SUBSEQUENT BAD FAITH ACTION (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division) (Unpublished)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insured doctor sued his medical malpractice carrier in bad faith for not settling a malpractice case within policy limits. The eventual verdict far exceeded…

FEBRUARY 2018 BAD FAITH CASES: COURT REVERSES ITS DECISION TO BIFURCATE BAD FAITH DISCOVERY BECAUSE OF LENGTH OF DISCOVERY PROCESS; ALLOWS BAD FAITH QUESTIONS AT 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION; AND QUASHES SUBPOENA ON INSURED’S LAWYER IN UNDERLYING ACTION (New Jersey Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This case involves a discovery dispute regarding coverage litigation between the parties, and the court’s reversing its decision to bifurcate bad faith discovery. The insurer was seeking…

SEPTMEBER 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: COURT ANALYZES ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT AS TO BOTH INSURER’S AND INSURED’S COUNSEL; DISCOVERY OF REGULATORY COMPLAINT DEPENDENT ON WHETHER THERE IS A PENDING INVESTIGATION (New Jersey Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Following in today’s discovery theme, this opinion addresses application of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine in the context of making or investigating…

NOVEMBER 2013 BAD FAITH CASES: PLAINTIFF’S BAD FAITH CLAIM POTENTIALLY GAVE AN INSURER THE ABILITY TO PIERCE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHERE IT CAN ESTABLISH NO LESS INTRUSIVE SOURCE EXISTS ON THE SUBJECTS OF SETTLEMENT DEMANDS, OFFERS, OR THE REJECTION OF SETTLEMENT DEMANDS OR OFFERS ON AN IMPLIED WAIVER THEORY, BUT IT FIRST HAD TO ATTEMPT DISCOVERY WITHOUT ASKING ABOUT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS (New Jersey Appellate Division)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Plaintiff, her husband, and their minor children were involved in a car crash in which their vehicle was hit head-on by the other driver. Plaintiff…

OCTOBER 2013 BAD FAITH CASES: COURT QUASHED SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO ATTORNEY OF THIRD PARTY AS IT SOUGHT INFORMATION IRRELEVANT TO THE CARRIER’S CLAIMS HANDLING ON AN IRRELEVANT CONTRACT, AND WOULD VIOLATE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE (New Jersey Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Kull v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, the court addressed a motion to quash a subpoena issued in connection with an underlying case in federal district…