Sheppard v. Direct General Insurance Company, No. 3:2016cv11418 - Document 48 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 41 MOTION to Compel Discovery, as more fully set forth herein; directing Defendant to serve the supplemental responses and documents within ten days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 12/4/2017. (cc: counsel of record) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sheppard v. Direct General Insurance Company Doc. 48 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION D AN N Y SH EPPARD , Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o .: 3 :16 -cv-114 18 D IRECT GEN ERAL IN SU RAN CE COMPAN Y, D e fe n d an t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION AN D ORD ER Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Com pel Discovery. (ECF No. 41). Defendant has filed a m em orandum opposing the m otion, (ECF No. 44), and Plaintiff has replied. (ECF No. 45). Therefore, the m otion is fully briefed, and the undersigned finds no need for oral argum ent. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned GRAN TS, in part, and D EN IES, in part, the m otion to com pel. I. Re le van t H is to ry On J une 29, 20 12, Plaintiff was involved in a serious autom obile accident caused by Robert Conway, who, while intoxicated, drove his vehicle across the center line of Route 60 in Cabell County, colliding head-on with the vehicle driven by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 2). At the tim e of the accident, Conway was living and working in West Virginia and had a valid automobile insurance policy issued by Defendant. (Id. at 3). Accordingly, Plaintiff asserted a claim against Conway’s policy, requesting paym ent for Plaintiff’s bodily injuries. Ultim ately, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim on the basis that Conway 1 Dockets.Justia.com did not have coverage for bodily injury under his autom obile insurance policy. Plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against Conway in 20 14, and in 20 15, obtained a default judgm ent in the am ount of $ 2,773,776.99. (Id. at 4-5). Thereafter, Conway assigned to Plaintiff any and all claim s for com pensatory and punitive dam ages that Conway possessed against Defendant arising out of its alleged m ishandling of Plaintiff’s 20 12 claim . (Id. at 5). Plaintiff filed the instant action, seeking a declaratory judgm ent that bodily injury coverage existed under Conway’s policy and asserting various other claim s based on Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s bodily injury claim . In the course of discovery, Plaintiff served Defendant with interrogatories and requests for the production of docum ents. Defendant respond to the discovery, but Plaintiff was dissatisfied with som e of Defendant’s answers. The parties attem pted to resolve the issues, but were unable to settle all of their differences. Consequently, Plaintiff filed the instant m otion to com pel. The m otion asks the court to com pel m ore com plete answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 16, 18 and docum ent Request for Docum ents Nos. 2, 3, 14, 15. II. D is cu s s io n Having considered the argum ents and the relevant law, the Court ORD ERS as follows: A. In te rro gato ry N o . 1 an d Re qu e s t fo r Pro d u ctio n N o . 14 In these discovery requests, Plaintiff seeks seven years of financial inform ation from Defendant. Defendant objects to the discovery requests on the basis that Plaintiff has not yet dem onstrated a prim a facie claim for punitive damages and provides no other reason for the disclosure of such inform ation. Plaintiff does not dispute the accuracy of Defendant’s objection; instead, Plaintiff offers a com prom ise, agreeing to 2 accept two years of financial inform ation to be produced at the pretrial hearing. As Defendant points out, this Court has previously held that a plaintiff m ust “m ake a prim a facie claim for punitive damages before being entitled to discovery of a defendant's financial records. To m ake a prim a facie claim for punitive damages ... a plaintiff m ust produce som e factual evidence in support of her claim .” Robinson v. Quicken Loans Inc., No. CIV.A. 3:12-0 981, 20 13 WL 170 4839, at *4 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 19, 20 13). Surviving a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, or filing a m otion to com pel “that includes sufficient supporting evidence (i.e., affidavits, docum entary evidence) to dem onstrate a viable claim for punitive damages” are two avenues by which Plaintiff m ay m ake such a showing in this case. Id. at n. 3. At this point, Plaintiff has not m ade a sufficient factual showing to justify an order com pelling the production of Defendant’s financial records. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel Interrogatory No. 1 and Request No. 14 is D EN IED as prem ature. B. In te rro gato ry N o . 4 In Interrogatory No. 4, Plaintiff asks for inform ation regarding the individuals who handled Plaintiff’s 20 12 claim . Defendant provided som e of the requested inform ation, including a list of the involved em ployees. Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of the em ployees’ nam es, but argues that Defendant should be com pelled to identify which of the listed em ployees “were involved in the decision to deny coverage for Plaintiff’s bodily injury claim .” (ECF No. 45 at 3). Plaintiff explains that this additional inform ation will allow him to narrow the scope of future discovery. In view of Plaintiff’s explanation, and noting that this inform ation is relevant to som e of Plaintiff’s claim s and not particularly burdensom e, Plaintiff’s m otion to compel a supplem ental response to Interrogatory No. 4, as fram ed herein, is GRAN TED . 3 C. In te rro gato ry N o . 5 In this query, Plaintiff asks for Defendant’s rationale in m aking a determ ination that West Virginia was not a State that required Defendant to afford bodily injury coverage if such coverage was not purchased by the insured. Defendant has answered the interrogatory, but Plaintiff feels the answer is inadequate. In his reply m em orandum , Plaintiff asks that Defendant be com pelled to clarify two aspects of its prior answer: (1) whether Conway’s residency at the tim e of the accident was a factor in Defendant’s denial of coverage, and (2) whether any of Defendant’s claim handlers sought guidance from Defendant’s legal departm ent in reaching the conclusion that West Virginia is not a “deem er” State (that being one that required Defendant to provide bodily injury coverage despite the insured’s failure to purchase sam e), or in denying coverage. Once again, these questions are easily answered and relevant. Given that Plaintiff is not asking Defendant to disclose attorney/ client com m unications, the Court GRAN TS Plaintiff’s Motion to Com pel Interrogatory No. 5 and ORD ERS Defendant to m ake the two clarifications. D . In te rro gato ry N o . 8 Plaintiff seeks inform ation regarding all of Defendant’s bad faith claim s, litigation, inform al com plaints, and grievances filed in both Florida and West Virginia for a period of ten years. Defendant objects, arguing that its experience in Florida has no relevance to this case. With respect to West Virginia, Defendant asserts that it has not been nam ed in any bad faith claim filed with the Insurance Com m issioner’s office, or in any bad faith litigation filed in West Virginia for the past seventeen years, with the exception of the instant action. Plaintiff contends that the inform ation supplied is insufficient, because he needs to prove that Defendant had a business pattern and 4 practice of wrongfully denying bodily injury claim s under sim ilar circum stances. Plaintiff’s prim ary contention in this case is that Defendant wrongfully refused to interpret Conway’s insurance policy to provide the m inim um m andatory bodily injury coverage required by the State of West Virginia. Plaintiff has already received inform ation dem onstrating that no other sim ilar claim or complaint has ever been asserted against Defendant in the State of West Virginia. In his m em orandum in support of the m otion to com pel, Plaintiff offers to lim it the scope of his interrogatory to “just those bad faith claim s filed in Florida relating to a denial of [bodily injury] claim s arising out of accidents occurring in a state other than Florida based on an insured’s failure to purchase [bodily injury] coverage.” (ECF No. 42 at 17). Defendant continues to object to the request, as am ended, on the basis that claim s filed in Florida are irrelevant to Defendant’s actions in West Virginia. While Defendant m ay be correct that this inform ation will not be adm issible at trial, adm issibility is not the determ inative factor in discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The newly delineated discovery request seeks inform ation that is relevant to Plaintiff’s case, and Defendant does not contend that producing sam e would be burdensom e or disproportional. Accordingly, the Court GRAN TS Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel Interrogatory No. 8, as m odified by Plaintiff. Presum ably, Plaintiff requests m atters filed in Florida, because the policy in this case was generated in Florida. Accordingly, Defendant is ORD ERED to provide Plaintiff with a list of bad faith lawsuits filed in Florida and with a list of form al claim s filed with an governm ental agency in Florida that allege that Defendant w rongfully denied a bodily injury claim on the basis that the insured had not purchased bodily injury coverage. Defendant shall provide this inform ation for the years 20 0 7 through 20 16, inclusive. Defendant shall not be required 5 to provide a list of grievances or inform al com plaints. E. In te rro gato ry N o . 16 In this interrogatory, Plaintiff asks Defendant to identify every bodily injury claim presented within the last ten years under a policy of insurance issued by Defendant, or any of its affiliates, o r in which Defendant reform ed its policy to “satisfy a foreign State’s com pulsory m otor vehicle insurance requirem ents.” Plaintiff fails to provide any cogent explanation as to how the inform ation requested in this interrogatory is proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff has no need to receive inform ation on all bodily injury claim s presented under an y policy issued by an y affiliate of Defendant, regardless of the type of policy. Moreover, Plaintiff has not dem onstrated that the law of the fifty States is the sam e or sim ilar on the relevant issues; that the policies at issue in the individual cases share com m on facts; or that the sam e decision m akers adjusted the various claim s. Moreover, there is som e confusion as to whether Plaintiff wants inform ation about “reform ed” policies, or actually requests inform ation regarding “conform ed” policies. Accordingly, at this point, the interrogatory is too broadly worded to satisfy a proportionality analysis. Furtherm ore, it requests inform ation that is not sufficiently related to the facts of this case to warrant supplem entation of Defendant’s response. Therefore, the Court D EN IES Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel Interrogatory No. 16. F. In te rro gato ry N o . 18 Plaintiff seeks inform ation regarding the training provided to Defendant’s claim adjusters who handle bodily injury claim s arising from autom obile accidents occurring in States other than Florida. Specifically, Plaintiff wants to know what and when training was provided on interpreting the com pulsory m otor vehicle insurance laws of States 6 other than Florida. Defendant refuses to provide this inform ation on the basis that it is irrelevant. Certainly, how Defendant arrived at its decision to deny coverage is relevant to som e of Plaintiff’s claim s; therefore, the training of Defendant’s decision m akers is relevant. Having said that, there is nothing to suggest that the training received by every claim s adjuster working for Defendant is relevant to what transpired in this case. Accordingly, the Court GRAN TS the m otion to compel, but lim its the scope of the interrogatory. Defendant is ORD ERED to provide Plaintiff with inform ation regarding the training received by any of Defendant’s em ployees or claim handlers who played a role in the decision to deny Plaintiff’s 20 12 bodily injury claim . G. Re qu e s ts fo r Pro d u ctio n o f D o cu m e n ts N o s . 2 an d 3 Plaintiff requests all advertising, m arketing, and prom otional m aterials generated by Defendant from 20 0 8 to the present. According to Plaintiff, this inform ation is relevant to whether Conway reasonably believed he was covered by autom obile liability insurance in any State in which he traveled. Defendant objects to the requests on the basis that Conway testified that he did not rely on any advertising, m arketing, or prom otional m aterials in purchasing his policy of autom obile insurance. Defendant attaches a copy of the relevant portion of Conway’s deposition as proof of Defendant’s assertion. (ECF No. 44-1 at 1). Having reviewed the deposition transcript, the undersigned agrees with Defendant that Conway denied relying on any of Defendant’s advertising or prom otions when selecting his insurance coverage. Although Conway did not unequivocally elim inate advertising as a com ponent in his purchase of insurance when responding to the general deposition question inquiring about sam e, he denied any m em ory of seeing 7 particular com m ercials on television, denied reading any newspaper or m agazine advertisements, and did not own a com puter. Without som e evidence that advertising or prom otions played a role in Conway’s selection of coverage, the requests seek inform ation that is entirely irrelevant to the issues in dispute. Therefore, the Court D EN IES Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel Requests for Production Nos. 2 and 3. H . Re qu e s t fo r Pro d u ctio n o f D o cu m e n ts N o . 15 In this request, Plaintiff asks for copies of m anuals, rules, guidelines, directives, or procedures used by Defendant’s em ployees in handling Plaintiff’s 20 12 claim . In its m em orandum in opposition to m otion to com pel, Defendant indicated that all responsive m aterials had previously been provided. In his reply, Plaintiff asks that the Defendant be ordered to clarify which of the previously provided docum ents are responsive to this request. The undersigned finds Plaintiff’s request to be reasonable and in keeping with the requirem ents of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Therefore, the m otion to com pel, as reform ulated in Plaintiff’s reply brief, is GRAN TED . III. Co n clu s io n In sum m ary, Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel is GRAN TED , to the extent indicated herein, and is D EN IED as stated. Defendant is ORD ERED to serve the supplem ental responses and docum ents within te n ( 10 ) d ays of the date of this Order. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record. EN TERED : Decem ber 4, 20 17 8
]]>
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.
