COURT PERMITS SOME UNDERWRITING DISCOVERY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTORY BAD FAITH CLAIM (Middle District)
The insurer denied coverage under a “regular use exclusion” in this UIM case. The complaint included a breach of contract claim, but no statutory bad faith claim. Plaintiff wanted to depose plaintiff’s corporate designee. The carrier argued the proposed deposition subjects were irrelevant to coverage, absent a bad faith claim, and moved for a protective order.
Middle District Magistrate Judge Saporito found that plaintiff could pursue certain limited discovery on underwriting, even absent a statutory bad faith claim. This was based primarily on the insurer raising the “regular use exclusion” as an affirmative defense, and the insureds alleging that the carrier owed “a fiduciary, contractual and statutory obligation to investigate, evaluate, and negotiate [her] UIM claim in good faith and to arrive at a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement.” [The reference to “statutory obligation” was not interpreted to mean plaintiffs were pleading a section 8371 statutory bad faith claim.]
Plaintiff had already deposed the carrier’s adjuster, but wanted a corporate designee to testify on the regular use exclusion and underwriting practices. This included the following subjects:
The underwriting procedures in place … for the period January 1, 2017[,] through the current date;
The underwriting regulations necessary to obtain the status of “preferred driver” under a … policy of insurance;
The determinative factors and costs associated with UIM coverage …;
The determinative factors and costs associated with UM coverage …;
The determinative factors and costs associated with stacking of UIM coverage…;
The determinative factors and costs associated with stacking of UM coverage …;
The factors [the insurer] utilizes in determining whether a vehicle is available for the “regular use” of an insured;
How the term “regular use” is defined in the applicable … policy and related documents;
Whether the … regular use exclusion must be accompanied by a stacking waiver;
All steps and measures [the insurer] takes to explain to its insureds the effect of the “regular use exclusion,” “household exclusion,” “family car exclusion,” and “unlisted driver exclusion”;
How the regular use exclusion is discussed in the [insurer’s] Claims Manual; and
Any facts supporting [the insurer’s] legal theories and defenses.
The court found that although the insureds did not allege statutory bad faith, they did plead breach of the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. Magistrate Judge Saporito found this sufficient to open the door to some greater discovery compared to a simple breach of contract case. He relied on three cases permitting discovery on the carrier’s decisionmaking process, even in the absence of a statutory bad faith count. Rau v. Allstate, Swientisky v. American States, and Craker v. State Farm.
The court found the following areas of inquiry relevant and discoverable: factors used to determine “whether a vehicle is available for the ‘regular use’ of an insured”; “[h]ow the term ‘regular use’ is defined in the applicable … policy and related documents”; whether the “regular use exclusion must be accompanied by a stacking waiver”; “[h]ow the regular use exclusion is discussed in the [insurer’s] Claims Manual”; “[a]ny facts supporting [the insurer’s] legal theories and defenses”; and “[a]ll steps and measures [the insurer] takes to explain to its insureds the effect of the ‘regular use exclusion….”
On the other hand, discovery was not permitted on matters “irrelevant to the issue regarding the application of the ‘regular use exclusion,’ as they relate to underwriting procedures, underwriting regulations necessary to obtain the status of ‘preferred driver,’ and the determinative factors and costs associated with UIM and UM coverage as well as stacking for those coverages.” Discovery concerning other exclusions was also irrelevant.
Thus, discovery was specifically barred for “[t]he underwriting procedures in place … for the period January 1, 2017[,] through the current date”; underwriting regulations necessary to obtain preferred driver status; “[t]he determinative factors and costs associated with UIM coverage”; “determinative factors and costs associated with UM coverage”; “determinative factors and costs associated with stacking of UIM coverage”; and “determinative factors and costs associated with stacking of UM coverage….”
Magistrate Judge Saporito further found the permitted discovery proportional, stating “the amount in controversy represents two-thirds of the total available insurance; [the insurer], as the drafter of the policy, has ready access to all relevant information especially regarding the denial of the claim; the importance of the discovery may be determinative of the issue whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any UIM benefits under the policy; and the burden of producing one witness is outweighed by the benefit in answering the questions about the validity of [the insurer’s] affirmative defense of the regular use exclusion.”
