TWENTY FORTH ANNUAL NORTHEAST SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 18th - 20th, 2013

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "TWENTY FORTH ANNUAL NORTHEAST SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 18th - 20th, 2013"

Transcription

1 TWENTY FORTH ANNUAL NORTHEAST SURETY AND FIDELITY CLAIMS CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 18th - 20th, 2013 LEGAL, PRACTICAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS CONFRONTING SURETIES AND FIDELITY CARRIERS IN RESPONDING TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING UNRELATED CLAIMS PRESENTED BY: SUSAN EVANS JONES, ESQ. Wolf, Horowitz & Etlinger, LLC 99 Pratt Street, Suite 401 Hartford, Connecticut Tel: (860) Fax: (860) THEA FOGLIETTA SILVERSTEIN Travelers Bond & Financial Products 1500 Market Street - Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19102

2 LEGAL, PRACTICAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS CONFRONTING SURETIES AND FIDELITY CARRIERS IN RESPONDING TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING UNRELATED CLAIM FILES It is common for a surety to receive numerous claims under the same bond or against the same principal on different projects. Fidelity insurers may receive similar claims from different policyholders seeking coverage under analogous policy provisions and often deny various claims from different policyholders on the basis of similar exclusions. Typically, information on each of these claims is kept in separate claim files for each particular claim. A surety or fidelity carrier generally expects that, if a claim is in litigation, it will be required to disclose its claim file with respect to that particular claim. It generally does not expect that it will be required to disclose claims files relative to other claims. However, opposing parties often seek information on other claims through the discovery process. Such requests might include requests for information regarding all claims received under a particular bond or on a particular project, requests for information regarding all claims received on other bonded projects with the same principal, requests for information regarding claims involving the same bond language, requests for information regarding claims seeking coverage under similar fidelity policy provisions, and requests for information regarding claims where the fidelity carrier denied coverage on the basis of the same exclusion as the subject claim. The surety or fidelity insurer will typically object to requests for discovery of information regarding other claims on the basis that such information is not relevant to the subject claim and that such requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome. This paper addresses the legal, practical and ethical issues confronting sureties and fidelity carriers when objecting and responding to discovery requests for information on other claims. The scope and limitations of discovery are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. State court rules may contain similar provisions defining the scope and limitations of discovery. Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the scope of discovery and states, in pertinent part: Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party s claim or defense-- including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

3 evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C). 1 Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which sets for the limitations on discovery, provides, in pertinent part: On motion or on its own, the court may limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that:... (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. 2 When discovery is sought from a surety or fidelity insurer on other claims besides the claim that is the subject of the litigation, a surety or fidelity carrier will want to consider the scope and limitations of discovery under the federal or state court rules in determining its ethical obligations to respond to such requests. In the surety context, a court considered whether a surety was required to disclose information regarding other claims in Green Construction Co. v. Kansas Power and Light Co. 3. An opposing party sought to have the surety respond in deposition to matters regarding other claims on construction performance bonds handled by the surety to which the surety raised a defense of lack of notice. 4 The surety objected, claiming that the request was burdensome and oppressive and that a great amount of labor time would be needed to adequately respond. The surety also objected on the basis that such information was not relevant. The surety represented that nearly 62,400 bond claims had been filed during the requested time period and that it did not have an index or filing code system for the claims. Therefore, production of the requested information would require manual examination of each of the claims files. The court stated that the critical analysis should be whether the need for such information, considering its relevancy and the nature of the case, outweighs the burden of the request. The court found that, although the claims histories might have some relevance, that relevancy was outweighed by the burden the request placed on the surety. 5 The court therefore granted the surety s request for a protective order. In the fidelity context, a court considered whether a policyholder was entitled to discover information regarding its fidelity insurer s treatment of similar claims of other policyholders in Retail Ventures, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh. 6 The policyholder brought suit against National Union seeking coverage 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) F.Supp (D. Kan. 1990). 4 Id. at Id. 6 No. 2:06-CV-443, 2007 WL (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2007).

4 under a computer fraud insurance policy for a computer hacking incident. The plaintiff sought discovery of, not only the claims file and underwriting file regarding its claim, but also of documents concerning claims made by other policyholders for coverage for computer fraud losses. The plaintiff argued that such information was central to the insurer s defenses. The insurer argued that the requests amounted to a burdensome fishing expedition, were irrelevant to the issues in the case, and that information regarding other claims was privileged, confidential, proprietary and subject to other insureds rights to privacy. The court held that the requests were overbroad and unduly burdensome and further noted it was not persuaded that information regarding claims of other policyholders was relevant to the plaintiff s claim. The court therefore denied the plaintiff s motion to compel production of information regarding a fidelity insurer s treatment of similar claims of other policyholders. 7 However, in BancInsure, Inc. v. Peoples Bank of the South, 8 a court held that information regarding other claims was subject to disclosure. The insurer had denied the insured s claims under a financial institution bond and directors and officers policy. The insurer brought a declaratory judgment action and the insured brought a counterclaim alleging bad faith claims in addition to a breach of contract claim. 9 The insured sought discovery of information regarding all other litigation in the prior five years involving bond or policy claims relating to alleged fraudulent activities by bank employees. The insured later agreed to limit its request to litigation in which the insured bank prevailed against the insurer. The insurer objected on the basis that such information was irrelevant and that compliance would be overly burdensome because it does not maintain a list of litigation categorized by subject or result and would have to manually search its files to obtain the requested information. 10 The court held the information sought was relevant and found the insurer had not met its burden of specifically articulating or establishing how each request was overly burdensome. 11 It ordered the insurer to produce the requested information on other claims, though it limited the request from five years to three years. 12 Courts have also considered whether information regarding other claims is discoverable in other insurance contexts, such as employment practices insurance, third-party liability, uninsured motorist coverage, disability insurance and health insurance, which may be instructive in the surety and fidelity arena. For instance, in St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Financial Corp., 13 a policyholder counterclaimed against its insurer alleging bad faith in a declaratory action brought by the insurer to determine coverage under an employment practices insurance policy. The policyholder sought to discover information regarding other bad faith claims brought against the 7 Id. at *5. 8 No. 3:11cv78-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL (S.D. Miss. Jan. 18, 2012). 9 Id. at *1. 10 Id. at *3. 11 Id. 12 Id F.R.D. 620 (N.D. Iowa 2000).

5 insurer. The court held that permitting such discovery would be to authorize a fishing expedition with little or no relevance to the merits of the bad faith claim. 14 In Moses v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 15 the plaintiff sought discovery of information regarding all no-fault claims handled by a particular insurance adjuster. The court held that this information was not relevant to the issues in the case, which it found were limited to the defendant s conduct regarding the plaintiffs claim for insurance benefits and the adequacy of the defendant s reasons for that conduct. The court held that the insurer s conduct regarding the insurance claims of others was of no consequence to the subject claim. 16 In Leksi, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 17 a policyholder brought suit against several of its insurers seeking defense and indemnity under various insurance policies for lawsuits brought against it. The plaintiff sought discovery of information regarding the insurer s application of the same policy language to similar claims made by other insureds. The plaintiff argued such information was relevant to the insurers intent and interpretation of the policies. The court found that information regarding the insurers interpretation of the language of an identical policy in an identical situation would be relevant. However, it further reasoned that while the relevance of information regarding other insureds may be established, it was remote. Therefore, the court held that information regarding the files of other insureds was not discoverable because, although potentially remotely relevant, its production would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the litigation. 18 The court noted that the production of files of other insureds would not only involve enormous inconvenience and management difficulties, but would also entail a frightening potential for spawning unbearable side litigation, which the court viewed as defeating the spirit of the discovery rules. 19 In Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 20 the plaintiff sought discovery of information regarding other claims, arguing that this information would be relevant to demonstrate the insurer s interpretation of similar policy provisions. The court reasoned that the conduct of the insurer regarding other claimants would become relevant only if the policy terms were determined to be ambiguous and assuming the claims of others were predicated on substantial similar occurrences and pursuant to similar ambiguous policy provisions. 21 The court denied the plaintiff s motion to compel discovery of other claims without prejudice to its renewal if the court later found any policy terms ambiguous Id. at F.R.D. 55 (N.D. Ga. 1983). 16 Id. at F.R.D. 99 (D.N.J. 1989). 18 Id. at Id. at No CV-1898-D, 1995 WL (N.D. Tex. May 17, 1995). 21 Id. at *2. 22 Id. at *3.

6 In Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. McCulloch, 23 the insured sought discovery of information regarding all lawsuits brought by or against other policyholders in which coverage was disputed and in which the relevant policy provisions were disputed. The insured argued this information might reveal inconsistent positions taken by the insurer and was relevant to whether the disputed policy language was ambiguous. 24 The court found the discovery requests amounted to nothing more than a fishing expedition and would run counter to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which requires that the rules be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. 25 North River Insurance Co. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co. 26 involved a dispute between a primary and excess carrier arising out of the handling of a personal injury action against the parties insured. The excess insurer alleged the primary insurer acted in bad faith in refusing to settle the personal injury action for within the policy limits, causing the excess insurer to ultimately settle the case for an amount far in excess of the primary policy limits after the underlying trial resulting in a verdict well in excess of the primary policy limits. 27 In discovery, the excess insurer sought information regarding any other bad faith actions brought against the primary insurer in the prior seven years. The primary insurer objected on the basis of relevancy. The court noted that any other bad faith cases would involve totally different facts and circumstances from the case before it. It further stated that such information was not only highly unlikely to be relevant to whether the primary insurer acted in bad faith in the subject case, but did not even appear reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court disallowed the discovery on prior claims, finding that such discovery was a fishing expedition, causing needless expense and burden to all concerned. 28 In Clark Equipment Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 29 the insured sought discovery of information on other environmental and delayed manifestation claims. The insurer argued that other claims raise too many other variables to be relevant. The insurer also submitted several affidavits detailing the massive burden involving time, effort, and expense, as well as the disruption of business operations, that would be imposed on [the insurer] if discovery of other policyholder claims would be allowed. 30 The court denied the discovery on other claims, finding that the existence of so many variables made the possibility of relevance too remote; the manner in which the claims of other policyholders was handled would create extended mini-trials; and such discovery would exceed the rational limits that must be set on the extent of discovery in complex litigation F.R.D. 516 (E.D. Pa. 1996). 24 Id. at Id. at F.Supp (E.D. Pa. 1995). 27 Id. 28 Id. at No. C.A. 89C-OC-173, 1995 WL (Apr. 21, 1995). 30 Id. at *2. 31 Id. at *3.

7 In Adams v. Allstate Insurance Co., 32 the insured brought an action against its automobile insurer alleging that the insurer acted in bad faith in connection with two claims for underinsured motorist benefits. The court held that past claims asserted by other insureds were not relevant to the bad faith causes of action at issue in the case. Likewise, in Kaufman v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 33 an insured brought suit against its insurance carrier in connection with an underinsured motorist claim and sought discovery of information regarding prior bad faith actions filed against the insurer over a seven year period. The court noted that the prior bad faith cases would necessarily involve totally different facts and circumstances. 34 It further found that, even if these prior bad faith cases had some relevance, the burden and expense of producing the information outweighed the likelihood of finding relevant material. 35 In Shellenberger v. Chubb Life America, 36 the insured sought information regarding each suit filed against the insurer for failure to pay disability benefits. The insured argued such information was relevant to show whether there was a repeated practice of denying disability benefits. The insurer objected on the basis that the request was overly broad and unduly burdensome and further argued that information regarding other claims was completely irrelevant to the issue of whether it acted in bad faith in this particular case. The court agreed with the insurer and stated that the fact of other suits was unlikely to be relevant to the issue of whether the insurer acted in bad faith with respect to the claim before the court. 37 In Steinkerchner v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. 38, the insured claimed breach of a disability insurance policy as well as bad faith and violation of the state consumer protection act. The insured sought discover of each disability claim that the insurer had denied in the state in the last three years. The insurer objected on the basis that the request was overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The insured moved to compel a response, arguing such information was necessary to show a pattern of improper denials, and the trial court granted its motion. 39 The insurer filed an application for an extraordinary appeal of this discovery order. 40 The appellate court held that the insurer s conduct regarding the unique claims of others was not relevant to whether it properly handled the claim in the subject case. It further found that the insured s speculative accusations about a course of conduct were not sufficient to demonstrate the relevance of the insured s handling of other claims. It therefore reversed the trial court s order allowing the discovery on other claims F.R.D. 331 (E.D. Pa. 1999). 33 No. CIV. A , 1997 WL (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 1997). 34 Id. at *2. 35 Id. 36 No. CIV. A ,1996 WL (E.D. Pa. Feb. 29, 1996). 37 Id. at *3. 38 No. 01-A CH-00039, 1999 WL (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 1999). 39 Id. at *1. 40 Id. at *2. 41 Id. at *3.

8 Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance Co. 42 involved a claim by an insured under a health insurance policy for payment in connection with an elective appendectomy. The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the contract only covered sickness or accident and not an elective hospitalization. 43 In discovery, the insured sought identification of and information regarding all suits against the insurer arising out of denial or termination of benefits under health insurance policies as well as information regarding all claims related to appendectomies that were denied on the basis that the procedure was not necessitated by sickness or injury. The insurer objected on the basis of relevancy and undue burden. The insurer represented that responding to such discovery requests would consume approximately 100 hours and cost approximately $6,000 or more to create a computer software program which would identify such claims, after which each claims file would need to be manually reviewed. 44 The court found that the insured was not entitled to information regarding prior lawsuits filed against the insured. It reasoned that, considering the nature of the controversy, the complexity of the lawsuit, the importance of the discovery to the lawsuit and the monetary amount involved, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a sufficient need for the information. It determined that the case at issue was not complicated, involved a small amount of money, and did not involve great issues of philosophic, social or institutional importance. Therefore, it held that information about other lawsuits or claims could not be deemed crucial to such a case. 45 It further reasoned that [m]ere incantations that an opponent has acted in bad faith will not convert a simple contract lawsuit into a license to burden or harass one s adversary. Conclusory claims of bad faith may not be the bases for conducting marginally relevant discovery which is by its nature burdensome. 46 In determining whether information regarding other claims is discoverable, a court will typically weigh the potential relevance of such information against the burden to the responding party. Whether information on other claims is considered relevant will depend in large part on the specific claims made by the opposing party and the defenses asserted by the surety or fidelity carrier. Whether or not bad faith claims are asserted against the surety or fidelity carrier will also be important in determining whether such information may be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery or admissible evidence. Ethically, a surety or fidelity carrier will want to determine the specific nature of the burden it will face when responding to a request for information on other claims when objecting to such requests on the basis that they are overly burdensome. This likely includes consideration of how the files are organized and categorized, the number of files potentially implicated and the labor involved in searching for and reviewing the potentially implicated files. Furthermore, as indicated by several of the cases discussed F.R.D. 121 (M.D.N.C. 1989). 43 Id. a Id. at Id. at Id. at 125.

9 in this paper, courts may be more receptive the surety or insurer s argument that requests for other claims are unduly burdensome where affidavits are submitted detailing precisely why the subject request is overly burdensome. It may be prudent to include in such affidavits a statement as to whether files are categorized or stored in such a manner as to be able to electronically search them to determine which are responsive to the subject requests. It also may make sense to include in such affidavits information regarding the anticipated labor involved in searching and reviewing other claim files, including the anticipated number of hours required and anticipated costs involved in conducting the review. As indicated in the cases discussed in this paper, courts have in some cases allowed discovery on other claims where the insurer has failed to demonstrate why responding to such requests would be burdensome. Therefore, the articulation of the precise nature of the burden of producing such information is not only ethically appropriate, but may increase the likelihood of success in defeating requests for information on other claims. As a practical matter, even if the surety or fidelity carrier is not requested to produce information regarding other claims, it may need to consider its ethical obligations to produce such information if it finds its way into the subject claim file. For instance, where a surety is handling several claims with the same principal, it may be that communications exist which reference several of these claims. The claims handler may write to the principal to request information regarding several of the claims. The principal may also take it upon itself to address several claims in one responsive letter. In these situations, the surety will want to consider whether it has an ethical duty to produce such information even if the opposing party has not sought discovery on other claims. If reference to other claims exists in the same document as information regarding the subject claim, this information may be discoverable. A surety or fidelity carrier can seek to avoid such unwanted disclosure of information on other claims by keeping each communication isolated to a particular claim. While it may be more timeconsuming to send six s to a principal each requesting more information on a particular claim as opposed to sending one referencing all of the claims, this separation of information will be helpful in avoiding unnecessary disclosure of information regarding other claims. When a surety or fidelity carrier receives requests from an opposing party for information regarding other claims, it must consider its ethical obligations to respond to such requests in light of the nature of the subject claim, the scope of the information sought and the applicable court rules defining the scope and limitations of discovery. A surety or fidelity carrier will often object when requests are made by the opposing party for information regarding other claims on the basis that the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and such requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome. The success of such objections will likely depend on the nature of the litigation, including the claims made by the opposing party, the defenses asserted by the surety or fidelity carrier and whether bad faith claims are asserted against the surety or fidelity carrier. The articulation of the nature of the burden faced is also critical to the success of such objections.

10 THEA FOGLIETTA SILVERSTEIN is Senior Claim Counsel with Travelers Bond & Financial Products, working out of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office. Thea received her law degree in 1987 from Whittier College School of Law in California, after which she practiced in the Phoenix, Arizona offices of Snell & Wilmer, LLP. Thea became a partner with Snell & Wilmer in Her practice focused in the areas of commercial and health care law and business litigation. Thea moved to Rome, Italy from 1998 to 2000 where she was associated with the Rome law offices of Simmons & Simmons Grippo. Upon returning to the United States, she practiced as a contract surety attorney and authorized agent with Atlantic Surety Consulting Company for AIG and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. In October 2006, Thea joined Travelers Bond and Financial Products as Claim Counsel in the Philadelphia office. Thea handles Contract Surety claim matters and provides legal support for underwriting in the South Central Territory. Thea is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, Washington, DC, Arizona, and California. SUSAN EVANS JONES is an associate with Wolf, Horowitz & Etlinger, LLC in Hartford, Connecticut. She focuses her practice on surety and fidelity law as well as insurance coverage and defense. Susan received her undergraduate degree from Skidmore College (B.A., cum laude, 1999). She received her law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law (J.D., with high honors, 2004). Susan is a member of the American Bar Association (Tort and Insurance Practice Section, Fidelity and Surety Law Committee, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee), Connecticut Bar Association, DRI and Connecticut Defense Lawyers Association. She regularly writes and presents on topics related to fidelity and surety law and is a past co-chair of the Fidelity Law Association Annual Conference. Susan is admitted to practice in Connecticut and Massachusetts. She can be reached by telephone at or by at sevans@wolfhorowitz.com.

DISCOVERY IN BAD FAITH CASES

DISCOVERY IN BAD FAITH CASES DISCOVERY IN BAD FAITH CASES Barbara A. O Brien A. The Tort of Bad Faith Bad faith is a separate tort from breach of contract. Anderson v. Continental Ins. Co., 85 Wis.2d 675, 686, 271 N.W.2d 368 (1978).

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0761 444444444444 IN RE NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

More information

Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

More information

POST LITIGATION BAD FAITH THE POTENTIALLY ERODING DEFENSE OF THE INSURER. Bradley J. Vance, Esquire 1

POST LITIGATION BAD FAITH THE POTENTIALLY ERODING DEFENSE OF THE INSURER. Bradley J. Vance, Esquire 1 POST LITIGATION BAD FAITH THE POTENTIALLY ERODING DEFENSE OF THE INSURER Bradley J. Vance, Esquire 1 For years Pennsylvania law has defined the bad faith cause of action based upon the terms of 42 Pa.C.S.A.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 D.O. DANA M. WELLE, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No.: :-cv-0 EMC (KAW) ORDER REGARDING SEPTEMBER,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC ORDER GAVIN'S ACE HARDWARE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER

More information

Protecting Against the Inadvertent Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege When Providing Defense-Related Information to an Insurer

Protecting Against the Inadvertent Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege When Providing Defense-Related Information to an Insurer Protecting Against the Inadvertent Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege When Providing Defense-Related Information to an Insurer Kirk A. Pasich March 2011. 1 Introduction Insurers often ask that their

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Thompson v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company et al Doc. 1 1 1 WO William U. Thompson, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, Property & Casualty Insurance

More information

HILTON HARRISBURG & TOWERS

HILTON HARRISBURG & TOWERS UNFAIR CLAIMS SETTLEMENT PRACTICES (REGULATIONS) AND PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION (REGULATIONS) THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON BAD FAITH ACTIONS Presented By: Jay Barry Harris, Esquire Krista

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : : IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFF, Successor-in-Interest to Plaintiff, vs. DEFENDANT, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S

More information

In Search of Consistency in Insurance Claims Handling: Discovery of Insurance Companies Files on Reserves and Other Policyholders Claims

In Search of Consistency in Insurance Claims Handling: Discovery of Insurance Companies Files on Reserves and Other Policyholders Claims In Search of Consistency in Insurance Claims Handling: Discovery of Insurance Companies Files on Reserves and Other Policyholders Claims MARSHALL GILINSKY AND AMY L. FRANCISCO The authors discuss the value

More information

Discovery in Bad Faith Insurance Claims: State of the Law, Successful Strategies. Teleconference Program Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Discovery in Bad Faith Insurance Claims: State of the Law, Successful Strategies. Teleconference Program Wednesday, March 29, 2006 Discovery in Bad Faith Insurance Claims: State of the Law, Successful Strategies Teleconference Program Wednesday, March 29, 2006 Topic III A. Who is suing? Does it matter? 1. Whether suit is brought by

More information

Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident

Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident 2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4856 Follow

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Wheeler & Haley, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: DAVID J. CUTSHAW KELLEY J. JOHNSON Cohen & Malad, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROSCOE FRANKLIN CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-3359 v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL ASSURANCE COMPANY O Neill, J. November 9, 2004 MEMORANDUM

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. Ludwig. J. July 9, 2010

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. Ludwig. J. July 9, 2010 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN M. KELLY : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 09-1641 NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE : INSURANCE COMPANY : MEMORANDUM Ludwig. J.

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE

More information

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION ATLANTIC STATES INSURANCE : February Term 2004 COMPANY, : Plaintiff, : No. 2642 v. : PATRICK

More information

Plaintiff has developed SAS System software that enables users to access, manage,

Plaintiff has developed SAS System software that enables users to access, manage, SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited Doc. 170 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION 5:10-CV-25-FL SAS INSTITUTE INC., Plaintiff, v.

More information

Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9

Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 MARY SOWELL et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION Page 1 of

More information

case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:11 CV 399 STATE FARM MUTUAL

More information

A Brief Overview of ediscovery in California

A Brief Overview of ediscovery in California What is ediscovery? Electronic discovery ( ediscovery ) is discovery of electronic information in litigation. ediscovery in California is governed generally by the Civil Discovery Act. In 2009, the California

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added

More information

Is Turnabout Fair Play? Insurers Seek Privileged Work Product From Policyholders Asserting Bad Faith Claims

Is Turnabout Fair Play? Insurers Seek Privileged Work Product From Policyholders Asserting Bad Faith Claims MEALEY S TM LITIGATION REPORT Insurance Bad Faith Is Turnabout Fair Play? Insurers Seek Privileged Work Product From Policyholders Asserting Bad Faith Claims by Kristi Singleton and Richard Gallena Dickstein

More information

Electronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys

Electronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys Electronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys By Ronald S. Allen, Esq. As technology has evolved, the federal courts have

More information

Defendant: PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY COURT USE ONLY Counsel for Plaintiff: Marc R. Levy, #11372

Defendant: PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY COURT USE ONLY Counsel for Plaintiff: Marc R. Levy, #11372 GRANTED Movant shall serve copies of this ORDER on any pro se parties, pursuant to CRCP 5, and file a certificate of service with the Court within 10 days. Dated: May 27, 2010 DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND

More information

Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01457-CV IN RE SOUTHPAK CONTAINER CORPORATION AND CLEVELAND

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session JAY DANIEL, ET AL. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Tipton County No. 7087 Joe H. Walker, III,

More information

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageid>

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageid> Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALVIN E. WISEMAN, Plaintiff,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case 0:10-cv-00772-PAM-RLE Document 33 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ideal Development Corporation, Mike Fogarty, J.W. Sullivan, George Riches, Warren Kleinsasser,

More information

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD. Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE

More information

2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579

More information

ENFIELD PIZZA PALACE, INC., ET AL. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK (AC 19268)

ENFIELD PIZZA PALACE, INC., ET AL. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK (AC 19268) SCHALLER, J. The plaintiffs 2 appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Insurance Company of Greater New York, in this declaratory judgment action concerning a dispute about the defendant

More information

Supreme Court Rule 201. General Discovery Provisions. (a) Discovery Methods.

Supreme Court Rule 201. General Discovery Provisions. (a) Discovery Methods. Supreme Court Rule 201. General Discovery Provisions (a) Discovery Methods. Information is obtainable as provided in these rules through any of the following discovery methods: depositions upon oral examination

More information

Key differences between federal practice and California practice

Key differences between federal practice and California practice Discovery and deposition practice in federal court Key differences between federal practice and California practice BY BRIAN J. MALLOY Federal law governs procedural matters for cases that are in federal

More information

THE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

THE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL THE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL Julie A. Shehane Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Telephone: 214-712 712-9546 Telecopy: 214-712 712-9540 Email: Julie.Shehane@cooperscully.com 2015 This

More information

Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery.

Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery. Published on Arkansas Judiciary (https://courts.arkansas.gov) Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery. (a) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RONALD DUTTON, : : Consolidated Under Plaintiff, : MDL DOCKET NO. 875 : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 09-62916 TODD SHIPYARDS CORP.,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Franke v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. et al Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil No. 1cv JM (JLB)

More information

2013 PA Super 29. APPEAL OF: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY No. 1502 EDA 2012

2013 PA Super 29. APPEAL OF: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY No. 1502 EDA 2012 2013 PA Super 29 PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND JOHN DOE A APPEAL OF: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

More information

Insurance Coverage In Consumer Class Actions

Insurance Coverage In Consumer Class Actions This article first appeared in the October 2010 issue of The Corporate Counselor. Insurance Coverage In Consumer Class Actions John W. McGuinness and Justin F. Lavella The business world is an increasingly

More information

Defendant. Pending before the Court is a motion (Dkt. No. 167) by defendant

Defendant. Pending before the Court is a motion (Dkt. No. 167) by defendant Case 1:08-cv-00623-RJA-JJM Document 170 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT a/s/o Sherry Demrick, v. Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL

More information

Conflicts between the insurer and the insured can arise from the fact that the duty

Conflicts between the insurer and the insured can arise from the fact that the duty AN ANALYSIS OF MARYLAND LAW REGARDING AN INSURER S DUTY TO DEFEND INCLUDING AN ANALYSIS OF THE TYPES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BETWEEN AN INSURED AND THE INSURER THAT MAY REQUIRE THE INSURER TO ACCEPT AND

More information

SSSHHHHH THERE S AN INSURANCE BROKER IN THE ROOM!

SSSHHHHH THERE S AN INSURANCE BROKER IN THE ROOM! ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar, March 1-3, 2012: Hey! Give Me Back That Document! Privilege Issues in Insurance Coverage Disputes SSSHHHHH THERE S AN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-148 (HL) ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-148 (HL) ORDER Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

More information

RECOGNIZING BAD FAITH CASES

RECOGNIZING BAD FAITH CASES RECOGNIZING BAD FAITH CASES Michael J. Mohlman Smith Coonrod Mohlman, LLC 7001 W. 79th Street Overland Park, KS 66204 Telephone: (913) 495-9965; Facsimile: (913) 894-1686 mike@smithcoonrod.com www.smithcoonrod.com

More information

---------------------------)

---------------------------) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION East Bridge Lofts Property Owners ) Civil Action No. 2: 14-cv-2567-RMG Association, Inc.; Creekstone Builders,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL DEMIZIO AND ANTHONY : CIVIL ACTION DEMIZIO in their own right and as : ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE : NO. 05-409 OF MATTHEW

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Huizenga v. Auto-Owners Insurance, 2014 IL App (3d) 120937 Appellate Court Caption DAVID HUIZENGA and BRENDA HUIZENGA, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE,

More information

How To Defend A Policy In Nevada

How To Defend A Policy In Nevada Insurance for In-House Counsel April 2014 Kevin Stolworthy, Esq. / Conor Flynn, Esq. / Matthew Stafford, Esq. Commercial General Liability Insurance ( CGL insurance ) Purpose of CGL Insurance CGL insurance

More information

Employers Mutual Insurance Co. (:MEMIC) and by defendant Yarmouth Lumber Inc.

Employers Mutual Insurance Co. (:MEMIC) and by defendant Yarmouth Lumber Inc. STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CNILACTION Docket No. CV-06-404.' ~ 1\": \,.'" l,} \'}\ - / -~_..~'jl, --f'i 'j - C ~ ~, DONALD l. GARBRECHT v. ORDER LAW LIBRARY ROBERT HUTTON, et al, FEB

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY : MAY TERM, 2004 & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, : No. 0621

More information

FILED May 21, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL

FILED May 21, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 140713-U NO. 4-14-0713

More information

Jn the anttth Statto Dftrkt Court for the boutbern Motrid ot eorgta 3runMutck Obtfiton

Jn the anttth Statto Dftrkt Court for the boutbern Motrid ot eorgta 3runMutck Obtfiton Case 2:09-cv-00096-LGW-JEG Document 39 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 15 Jn the anttth Statto Dftrkt Court for the boutbern Motrid ot eorgta 3runMutck Obtfiton STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff,

More information

F I L E D June 29, 2012

F I L E D June 29, 2012 Case: 11-20469 Document: 00511904997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 29, 2012 Lyle

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EEOC versus BROWN & GROUP RETAIL, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-3074 Memorandum and Order Regarding Discovery Motions,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KIRK A. HORN Mandel Pollack & Horn, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT S. O DELL O Dell & Associates, P.C. Carmel, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

More information

Insurance Bad Faith. Statutory Bad-Faith Claims Following An Appraisal Award In Florida MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT

Insurance Bad Faith. Statutory Bad-Faith Claims Following An Appraisal Award In Florida MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT Insurance Bad Faith Statutory Bad-Faith Claims Following An Appraisal Award In Florida by David H. Shaw, II, Esq. Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP Tampa, Florida A commentary

More information

The two sides disagree on how much money, if any, could have been awarded if Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, were to prevail at trial.

The two sides disagree on how much money, if any, could have been awarded if Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, were to prevail at trial. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES If you are a subscriber of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and you, or your dependent, have been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, you could receive

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION III PATRICK CORRIGAN, and ) No. ED99380 SEAN CORRIGAN, ) ) Appellants, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable

More information

Case 2:12-cv-02198-JWS Document 113 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:12-cv-02198-JWS Document 113 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case 2:12-cv-02198-JWS Document 113 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Mary M. Murphy, individually and as conservator for her minor children, W. M. and L. M.,

More information

The Duty of Preservation

The Duty of Preservation Session 6 ERM Case Law: The Annual MER Update of the Latest News, Trends, & Issues Hon. John M. Facciola United States District Court, District of Columbia Kenneth J. Withers, Esq. Deputy Executive Director,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION CANDICE MILLER COOK, Plaintiff, vs. No. 04-2139-Ml V DAVID E. CAYWOOD and DARRELL D. BLANTON Defendants. ORDER

More information

Case 2:08-cv-04597-LDD Document 17 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:08-cv-04597-LDD Document 17 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:08-cv-04597-LDD Document 17 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUZANNE BUTLER, Individually and as : Administratrix of the Estate

More information

BAD FAITH IN WASHINGTON

BAD FAITH IN WASHINGTON BAD FAITH IN WASHINGTON By Steve Jensen,, and An insurer s bad faith can give rise to two related causes of action under Washington law: 1) a cause of action for bad faith sounding in tort, and 2) a cause

More information

Bad Faith: Choice of Law Matters

Bad Faith: Choice of Law Matters Bad Faith: Choice of Law Matters Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge Insurance and Reinsurance Review - September 2010 Marc S. Voses Choice of law issues cannot be overlooked in insurance bad faith litigation,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 12-CV-1210

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 12-CV-1210 First American Title Insurance Company v. Westbury Bank Doc. 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-CV-1210 WESTBURY

More information

The Impact of Social Media on Damages in Employment Litigation. By: Angie C. Davis and Mary Wu

The Impact of Social Media on Damages in Employment Litigation. By: Angie C. Davis and Mary Wu The Impact of Social Media on Damages in Employment Litigation By: Angie C. Davis and Mary Wu Everyone Facebook stalks - even (or shall I say especially) plaintiff and defense lawyers in Employment lawsuits.

More information

Case 4:14-cv-01527 Document 39 Filed in TXSD on 07/08/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORDER

Case 4:14-cv-01527 Document 39 Filed in TXSD on 07/08/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORDER Case 4:14-cv-01527 Document 39 Filed in TXSD on 07/08/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 140790-U. No. 1-14-0790 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 140790-U. No. 1-14-0790 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st 140790-U THIRD DIVISION March 25, 2015 No. 1-14-0790 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

How To Deal With A Div Claim In Insurance Coverage

How To Deal With A Div Claim In Insurance Coverage Troubling Trends in Diminution in Value and Small-Loss Appraisals Thomas D. Martin Partner Swift Currie McGhee & Hiers LLP 1 Introduction In 2012, the Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that a building

More information

How To Prove That An Insured Person Is Not Acting In Good Faith

How To Prove That An Insured Person Is Not Acting In Good Faith Attacking Claims of Privilege in a Bad Faith Action Particularly with the advent of no-fault insurance schemes, more and more people are finding themselves embroiled in litigation with their insurance

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION. Chapter 11 Jointly Administered

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION. Chapter 11 Jointly Administered IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION In re: LOUIS J. PEARLMAN, et al., Debtor. / Case No. 6:07-bk-00761-ABB Chapter 11 Jointly Administered DEFENDANTS 1 OBJECTION

More information

2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC

More information

TAX RETURNS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS

TAX RETURNS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS TAX RETURNS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS -- LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS A PLAINTIFF MAY NOT ASSERT A PRIVILEGE TO TX RETURNS AND THUS

More information

Case 1:11-cv-00912-TJM-DJS Document 196 Filed 06/20/14 Page 1 of 13. Plaintiff, v. 1:11-CV-912. Defendants. DECISION and ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-00912-TJM-DJS Document 196 Filed 06/20/14 Page 1 of 13. Plaintiff, v. 1:11-CV-912. Defendants. DECISION and ORDER Case 1:11-cv-00912-TJM-DJS Document 196 Filed 06/20/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PACIFIC EMPLOYERS

More information

Recommended Chapter Title and Rule. Current Montana Chapter Title and Rule V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY

Recommended Chapter Title and Rule. Current Montana Chapter Title and Rule V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY Current Montana Chapter Title and Rule V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY RULE 26. GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY Recommended Chapter Title and Rule V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY RULE 26. GENERAL PROVISIONS

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3601 J.E. Jones Construction Co.; The Jones Company Custom Homes, Inc., Now known as REJ Custom Homes, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Appeal from

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 94-11035. (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 94-11035. (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-11035 (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal

More information

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 :

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 : 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1140c Insurance -- Uninsured motorist -- Coverage -- Stacking -- Action against UM insurer by insured policyholder who was injured in single-car accident while riding as passenger in

More information

Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8 Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION SPINE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

More information

Annuity Litigation - Class Certification and Summary of Insurance Loan

Annuity Litigation - Class Certification and Summary of Insurance Loan Annuity Marketplace ACLI 2011 Compliance and Legal Sections Annual Meeting Jason A. Walters jwalters@babc.com babc.com ALABAMA I DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I MISSISSIPPI I NORTH CAROLINA I TENNESSEE Topics Class

More information

TENDERING CLAIMS UNDER YOUR CGL INSURANCE POLICY By Nick M. Campbell, Esq. GREEN & CAMPBELL, LLP. A. History of Commercial Liability Policies

TENDERING CLAIMS UNDER YOUR CGL INSURANCE POLICY By Nick M. Campbell, Esq. GREEN & CAMPBELL, LLP. A. History of Commercial Liability Policies TENDERING CLAIMS UNDER YOUR CGL INSURANCE POLICY By Nick M. Campbell, Esq. GREEN & CAMPBELL, LLP Please note that this article is only intended to provide some general educational information regarding

More information

Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship

Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship [click] By Bruce A. Campbell 1 Introduction In most areas of the practice of law, there are a number of ethical issues that arise on a frequent

More information

CLASS ACTION. Westlaw Journal. Expert Analysis The State of Coverage Disputes Concerning Advertising And Privacy Claims

CLASS ACTION. Westlaw Journal. Expert Analysis The State of Coverage Disputes Concerning Advertising And Privacy Claims Westlaw Journal CLASS ACTION Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 19, ISSUE 8 / SEPTEMBER 2012 Expert Analysis The State of Coverage Disputes Concerning Advertising

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON. July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY ) Shelby County Chancery Court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON. July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY ) Shelby County Chancery Court IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON FILED July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY Shelby County Chancery Court CORPORATION, No. 108770-1 R.D. Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk Plaintiff/Appellant.

More information

STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Patricia L. Acampora, Chairwoman Maureen F. Harris Robert E. Curry, Jr. Cheryl A. Buley STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission

More information

Insurance Industry Expert Testimony: Is It a Legal Conclusion or Custom and Practice?

Insurance Industry Expert Testimony: Is It a Legal Conclusion or Custom and Practice? Insurance Industry Expert Testimony Insurance Industry Expert Testimony: Is It a Legal Conclusion or Custom and Practice? Anthony J. Zarillo, Jr. I. Introduction As a general matter, whether expert witness

More information

Assembly Bill No. 5 CHAPTER 5

Assembly Bill No. 5 CHAPTER 5 Assembly Bill No. 5 CHAPTER 5 An act to amend Sections 2016.020, 2031.010, 2031.020, 2031.030, 2031.040, 2031.050, 2031.060, 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, 2031.250, 2031.260, 2031.270, 2031.280,

More information

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LACLEDE COUNTY. Honorable G. Stanley Moore, Circuit Judge

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LACLEDE COUNTY. Honorable G. Stanley Moore, Circuit Judge JOSEPH SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD33341 ) MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, ) Filed: Jan. 23, 2015 ) Defendant-Appellant, ) ) and ANDREW SHAYATOVICH, ) ) Defendant-Respondent. ) APPEAL FROM

More information

SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2010.

SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2010. SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2010. CRAIG A. GARGOTTA UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE: ' CASE NO. 09-12799-CAG

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M. EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M. EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE : CIVIL ACTION COMPANY, : NO. 99-3533 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : WILLIAM COSENZA, ET. AL., : : Defendants.

More information

Case 2:08-cv-83111-ER Document 55 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:08-cv-83111-ER Document 55 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:08-cv-83111-ER Document 55 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA REGINALD DENT : CONSOLIDATED : MDL 875 v. : : EDPA CIVIL ACTION

More information

Amy S. Harris Shareholder

Amy S. Harris Shareholder Shareholder Amy Harris joined Macdonald Devin in 1989 and represents clients in state and federal trial and appellate courts, primarily in insurance defense litigation and insurance coverage. She has served

More information