 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garg v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co.11/7/2003
. Grange Mutual Casualty Company ("Grange") appeals from a judgment of the Miami County Court of Common Pleas, compelling the production of several documents in an insurance claim file that contain attorney-client communications and attorney work-product materials.
. Mrs. Lila Garg was the owner of a warehouse, located at 405 Peters Road in Troy, Ohio. Dr. Tarsem Garg, her husband, held insurance policies related to the property: (1) a commercial fire insurance policy and a commercial general liability insurance policy, both issued by State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company ("State Auto"), and (2) a homeowner's insurance policy, issued by Grange. The latter policy pertained to the Gargs' residence in Springfield, Ohio, and it contained a provision that also covered personal property owned by them and located "anywhere in the world." According to Grange, Dr. and Mrs. Garg and their adult son, Anup, were insureds under its policy.
. On March 20, 2001, the warehouse premises, including all of its contents, were destroyed by fire. On July 20, 2001, the Gargs submitted a claim to Grange based on the loss of personal property as a result of the fire. Grange conducted an investigation of the cause and the origin of the fire, and it concluded that the fire was intentionally set by a person who had access to a key to the warehouse. Consequently, Grange requested examinations under oath of Tarsem, Lila, and Anup Garg. The examinations were held in November 2001.
. On February 26, 2002, counsel for the Gargs sent correspondence to Grange, requesting a determination on their claims. The correspondence indicated that if Grange failed to respond promptly and favorably, the Gargs would file suit for the amount of their losses and for bad faith on the part of Grange, based on its refusal to adjust and to pay their claim. On April 4, 2002, prior to Grange's rendering a decision on the Gargs' claim, Dr. Garg filed a complaint against Grange and State Auto, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and unfair claims practices, and containing a request for punitive damages. Grange filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the fire was caused by arson and joined Anup Garg as an "involuntary plaintiff." Dr. Garg settled his claims against State Auto, and that insurer has been dismissed from this litigation.
. On June 4, 2002, the Gargs served a request for production of documents, requesting a copy of "Grange's entire claims file pertaining to the investigation and consideration of the Plaintiffs' claims." Grange responded by producing documents totaling 1,726 pages and a Privileged Log listing 11 documents that were either redacted or withheld from production on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine.
. On December 4, 2002, the Gargs filed a motion to compel discovery of the redacted and/or withheld documents. Grange opposed the motion and filed a motion to bifurcate, requesting, in the event that the trial court compelled production of the disputed documents, an order bifurcating the trial of the breach-of-contract and unfair-claims-practices claims and the bad-faith claim, with a stay of discovery of the bad-faith claim until the resolution of the underlying breach-of-contract and unfair-claims-practices claims.
. On January 3, 2003, as modified on January 23, 2003, the trial court ruled that all documents in an insurance claims file created prior to a denial of coverage are discoverable, notwithstanding the fact that some may constitute attorney work-product or attorney-client communications. Relying upon Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 209, the trial court rejected the suggestion that "th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|