ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT