 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Catholic Mutual Relief Society v. Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles4/25/2005
denied discovery of insurance information beyond that permitted under former rule 26(b)(2). In each case mentioned, however, discoverability turned on whether the requested information was relevant to an issue in the case. (Id. at pp. 303-304, and cases cited therein.) The court did not reach a holding concerning the relevancy of the information requested by the plaintiff in its own case, however. Instead, the Supreme Court allowed the deposition to go forward, but only because the trial court order permitting the deposition did not specifically address policy erosion. The witness could therefore testify about any relevant matters, with defense counsel free to object to any irrelevant inquiries concerning coverage erosion. Therefore, even though Dana did not directly hold that the information requested was irrelevant for discovery purposes, it strongly signaled that it was not discoverable.
The plaintiff in Wegner, supra, 153 F.R.D. 154, sought discovery from defendant's insurer about the amounts of available coverage that had already been expended, arguing that such information would allow him to make a realistic appraisal of his settlement prospects. After concluding that the requested information could not be sought under rule 26(b)(2), the Wegner court cited to a case which permitted discovery of documents showing an insurer's aggregate reserve information, but only because the information was relevant to issues raised in the case, including notice, defect, and punitive damages. Based on that, the court concluded that there was no authority which would require the insurer to produce the desired information. (Id. at p. 161.)
Both Dana and Wegner concerned insurance policies where the amount of coverage available might have been reduced by payments on other claims. According to petitioners, however, their policies are not "depleting value," meaning the Church's coverage is not reduced by the payment of other claims or fees. Therefore, the coverage erosion issues which were used to justify the improper discovery requests in Dana and Wegner are not even present here.
At bottom, the information plaintiffs seek is simply far too remote from the subject matter of this action to be relevant. (See Snell v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 44, 50-51 [plaintiff in medical malpractice action tried to discover whether the defendant hospital required its physicians to carry malpractice insurance; requested information was "only tenuously connected" to the question whether the hospital was negligent in hiring and evaluating its staff physicians].) Nor, we fear, would allowing this discovery mark the end of plaintiffs' financial information forays. Plaintiffs claim they need to learn about petitioners' reinsurance information because a large portion of petitioners' policy obligations have been laid off on reinsurance coverage. Because the primary purpose behind reinsurance is to spread the primary insurer's risk, we are unsure how the existence or extent of reinsurance would negatively affect petitioners' financial condition. If plaintiffs obtained the reinsurance information, do they next intend to subpoena documents from the reinsurers concerning their own financial condition? While we do not know the answer, the question illuminates the hazards of extending the concept of relevancy as far as plaintiffs wish it to go. Although "fishing expeditions" are sometimes allowed by the discovery rules, there are limits on the catch. (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387.) In short, while a rod and reel may be permitted, gill nets are not.
Finally, even if the information were relevant for the purposes identified, plaintiffs do not contend that it would produce admi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|