COA reverses motion allowing for release of documents

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today reversed an order from Lake Superior Court that granted a motion to compel the production of documents from the appellant-defendant Allstate Insurance Company. The trial court found that by raising an advice of counsel defense, the insurance company had waived the attorney-client privilege, and therefore the documents could be produced.

In Allstate Insurance Company v. Timothy Clancy, et al., No. 45A03-0910-CV-498, regarding a May 27, 2002, accident between a truck and a motorcycle, an attorney for Allstate had offered a $100,000 policy-limit settlement to Dianna Goad, who was hit by driver Tim Clancy, who was insured by Allstate.

She refused the settlement because her husband, who was driving a separate motorcycle and witnessed the accident and resulting injury, was not also offered a $100,000 policy-limit settlement for his emotional distress claim.

At trial in 2005, a jury found that the Goads should receive $11 million - $10 million for Dianna’s personal injury claim and $1 million for her husband’s emotional distress claim. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in 2006.

“Following the jury verdict, Clancy assigned his claims against Allstate to the Goads who, on May 30, 2007, filed a complaint alleging, among other things, that Allstate’s decision not to offer a $100,000 policy limit to Mr. Goad in addition to $100,000 for Mrs. Goad was made in bad faith. In its answer, Allstate stated the following affirmative defense: [t]he emotional distress claim(s) of Robert Goad in cause No. 45D11-0209-CT-200 and whether insurance coverage existed for such claims is fairly debatable. Appellant’s App. at 76,” Judge James S. Kirsch wrote in today’s opinion.

During discovery, Allstate withheld 44 pages of communication between the company and the attorney who was hired to seek declaratory relief in District Court regarding the meaning of the per-person limit language contained in the policy held by Clancy.

Because Allstate counsel said the emotional distress claim was “fairly debatable,” which Allstate used in its affirmative defense, the Goads claimed Allstate therefore waived its attorney-client privilege. The trial court agreed, but the Court of Appeals disagreed.

“We hold that the ‘fairly debatable’ defense, absent any other connection to reliance upon advice of counsel, is tantamount to a good faith defense and insufficient in and of itself to waive attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order compelling discovery of the challenged documents,” Judge Kirsch wrote.

However, Judge Margret G. Robb wrote in her dissent that “when an insurer asserts that a claim is ‘fairly debatable’ refers to a legal issue, it necessarily relies on advice of counsel and waives the attorney-client privilege.”

“… Insurers might more clearly indicate when they have relied on an attorney’s legal conclusion to deny coverage – and therefore put an attorney’s advice at issue to waive the attorney-client privilege – and alternatively when they have not relied on the advice of counsel but determined that the facts of a particular case led to denial of coverage. In future cases this application of the law might clarify the substantive issues in dispute and when the attorney-client privilege is waived,” she added.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?