A federal magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition testimony regarding a transaction reinsuring defendant Unum’s individual disability block of business. Plaintiff brought suit alleging that Unum breached the parties’ insurance contract by refusing to pay him total disability benefits. Plaintiff moved to compel Unum’s deposition on, among other topics, Unum’s actuarial analysis of its transaction with Northwind reinsuring its individual disability block. In support of his motion, plaintiff cited a press release by Unum’s president stating that the Northwind reinsurance arrangement created capital for Unum’s business that could be deployed for other uses. Plaintiff argued that discovery of information regarding the deal was relevant because it might show how Unum was using money set aside for claims to create capital rather than to pay claims like plaintiff’s. The court denied plaintiff’s motion, holding that Unum’s capital management strategy was irrelevant to the case. Raab v. Unum Group, Case No. 2:10-cv-00186 (USDC S.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2011).
This post written by Ben Seessel.