In a dispute between a credit union and CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc., the credit union sought discovery on whether CUMIS had a reinsurer that could indemnify the parties for certain losses at issue in the action. CUMIS objected to disclosing its reinsurer on the grounds of relevancy, and the credit union moved to compel. The court granted the credit union’s motion and ordered CUMIS to produce its reinsurance agreements. The court held that when an insurer is a party to an action, reinsurance agreements to which the insurer is a party must be produced with the insurer’s Initial Disclosures, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iv). The court further held that the Rule was absolute and does not require a showing of relevance. The court found support in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26, which explain that disclosure of insurance coverage enable counsel to make a “realistic appraisal of the case” for settlement and litigation strategy. Suffolk Federal Credit Union v. CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc., Case No. CV 10-0001 (USDC E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2010).
This post written by Michael Wolgin.