Dodd v. Safeco Insurance Company of America
5:19-cv-00701
W.D. Okla.Apr 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jason Dodd purchased a vehicle in 2015, combining an outstanding prior auto loan into his new vehicle loan.
- In August 2017, Dodd purchased an auto insurance policy from Safeco Insurance Company, containing "GAP" coverage language regarding "carry-over balances."
- In April 2018, Dodd’s vehicle was totaled in an accident; a dispute arose after Safeco paid Dodd less than he believed owed under the policy.
- The core dispute centers on the interpretation of “carry-over balances” in the coverage—Safeco views it as the original carried-over amount, while Dodd argues it should be the reduced sum after loan payments.
- Both parties filed extensive discovery motions, including motions to compel, to quash, and for protective orders, leading to detailed judicial rulings on the scope, relevance, and proportionality of the requested discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of Privilege (Privilege Log) | Safeco waived objections by not timely producing a privilege log | Privilege log was provided promptly after required protective order | No waiver; Safeco complied |
| Interpretation of “Carry-Over Balances” | Should mean current balance after payments (not just original amount) | Means original carried-over balance from prior loan | Legal issue reserved; discovery on ambiguity and extrinsic evidence allowed |
| Scope & Proportionality of Dodd’s Discovery Requests | Requests relevant to breach of contract and bad faith claims | Many requests overbroad, burdensome, not proportional | Partial grant: Limited some requests by time/geography, denied others as overbroad |
| Interrogatory Subparts Exceeding Limits (Rule 33(a)(1)) | Thematically related subparts should count as single interrogatories | Each subpart is discrete—plaintiff exceeded limit | Held for Safeco; subparts are discrete, motion denied on excess |
| Dodd’s Damages—Computation Requirement | Non-economic damages not subject to computation | Computation required if specific dollar amount to be sought | Dodd must provide computations or may not request specific dollar amount |
| Discovery of Plaintiff’s Financial Records (Tax Returns, Loans) | Financial condition not at issue for bad faith claim | Relevant due to claim of financial hardship caused by Safeco | Safeco’s motion granted as to relevant records only |
| 30(b)(6) Deposition Scope/Temporal Limit | Sought broad inquiry on Safeco’s claims handling and policies | Requests overbroad, unduly burdensome; limit by years | Limited to 2014-2018, some topics narrowed or excluded |
| Subpoena for Safeco’s Expert Documents | Dodd entitled to seek documents | Safeco & expert objected, no motion to compel by Dodd | Denied as moot—no further production absent timely motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Motley v. Marathon Oil Co., 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995) (trial courts have broad discretion over discovery; abuse of discretion is standard of appellate review)
- Otis Elevator Co. v. Midland Red Oak Realty, Inc., 483 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2007) (contract interpretation: court looks within the four corners unless ambiguous)
- Coletti v. Cudd Pressure Control, 165 F.3d 767 (10th Cir. 1999) (defines abuse of discretion as an arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable decision)
- Willis v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 42 F.3d 607 (10th Cir. 1994) (bad faith standard: whether insurer had a justifiable reason to withhold payment)