Arbitration / Court Decisions

Defendant liability insurers sought discovery from Third Party Aon relating to a dispute between defendants and plaintiff regarding an umbrella coverage program. Aon provided some, but not all responsive documents, citing instructions from Plaintiff Black & Veatch, which asserted privilege objections on behalf of Aon, and provided a privilege log for 41 withheld documents. The defendants moved to compel production of all but two of those documents. In response, Black & Veatch claimed that Aon was acting as a representative of Black & Veatch, that they were made in anticipation of litigation, were subject to attorney-client privilege, and that the documents were thus protected from disclosure. The Court held that the privilege log did not adequately disclose the bases for the assertions of privilege or work product, that it was not evident that Aon acted as Black & Veatch’s agent, that the documents listed were prepared in anticipation of litigation, or that they were confidential communications reflecting a primary purpose of providing legal advice. The Court also held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a basis for in camera review, and thus ordered it to produce the documents. Black & Veatch v. Aspen Insurance (UK) Ltd., No. 12-2350-SAC (USDC D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2014).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

In a declaratory relief action brought against the FDIC by the liability insurer for the directors and officers of a bank in receivership, the court resolved a discovery dispute that included a contested request for information exchanged between the insurer and its reinsurer. In compelling the production of the reinsurance information, the court adopted a prior case’s articulation of seven reasons why reinsurance information might be relevant to assist with the construction of policy language: to determine (1) how the insurer has interpreted the provisions in the current lawsuit; (2) whether the insurer’s interpretation has been consistent with the positions taken with insureds; (3) whether the insurer and reinsurer discussed whether the type of claims in dispute would be covered; (4) whether the insurer and reinsurer discussed the insureds’ expectations on the scope of coverage; (5) when the insurer received notice of claims; (6) if the insureds’ claims were untimely, whether the insurer claimed it was prejudiced as a result; and (7) whether the reinsurer was involved in the sales and marketing of the policies in dispute, and if so, what those efforts reflect in terms of the reasonable expectations of the insureds concerning the scope of coverage. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. FDIC, Case No. 5:12-cv-04041 (USDC N.D. Iowa Mar. 10, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.