SER Allstate Insurance v. Madden, Judge (dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 31392 State of West Virginia ex rel. Allstate Insurance Company v. The Honorable John T. Madden, Judge of the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia FILED July 21, 2004 McGraw, Justice, dissenting: released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA I dissent from the majority because I believe the trial court fairly afforded Allstate the opportunity to prove that the requested documents and testimony are protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine and further, correctly determined that the repeated assertions by Allstate s counsel that the privileges applied, without more, were not legally sufficient. As the trial court concluded, Allstate failed (or, more accurately, refused) to demonstrate that the information the plaintiff requested with respect to Allstate s position on the critical issue of stacking involved legal advice, was intended to be confidential, and thus, was meant to be privileged. See Syl. pt. 7, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Canady, 194 W.Va. 431, 460 S.E.2d 677 (1995). These elements, which are required to assert the attorney-client privilege, are both basic and well-established. They are not optional. Nevertheless, Allstate utterly failed to satisfy them. Because, in my view, the trial court committed no error in this case, I respectfully dissent.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
