Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Great Am. Insurance
284 F.R.D. 132
| S.D.N.Y. | 2012Background
- This insurance coverage dispute concerns the sinking and salvage of a Texas dry dock in 2009 and the related insurance claims between Signal and Max Specialty.
- Signal sought reinsurance documents from Max and Arch Re related to the excess policy Max issued to Signal; Max resisted on privilege grounds and relevance.
- Max produced some Arch Re file materials but withheld others, asserting common‑interest privilege and other privileges.
- Signal also sought Max’s claims file and documents from Max’s former law firm, with a separate hearing later planned.
- Max moved to compel Signal to produce Signal’s dual carrier business records and pumping records for the Mississippi dual carrier; Signal opposed as irrelevant or burdensome.
- The court granted Signal’s motion to the extent it sought Arch Re and related reinsurance documents, denied Max’s request for pumping records, and granted in part for dual carrier business records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Max must disclose Arch Re and related reinsurance documents | Signal asserts relevance to rebut Max’s fraud theories and coverage issues. | Max contends documents are privileged or protected by common interest doctrine. | Produce Arch Re and related reinsurance documents; lack of valid privilege shown. |
| Whether the common interest privilege applies between Max and Arch Re | Signal contends there is no protective common interest that would justify withholding. | Max cites common interest to withhold materials from Arch Re. | No common legal interest found; Max must produce documents it disclosed to Arch Re. |
| Whether Max is entitled to compel production of Signal's dual carrier records | Max contends dual carrier records are relevant to business interruption and related defenses. | Signal argues records are irrelevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. | Granted as to dual carrier business records; denied as to dual carrier pumping records. |
| Whether the court should resolve Signal’s requests for Max’s claims file and former counsel documents | Separate hearing ordered; record insufficient to resolve at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court broad discretion over discovery scope)
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rajaratnam, 622 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (district court management of discovery discretion)
- Oppenheimer Fund., Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (broad relevance standard for discovery)
- Bernstein v. Travelers Ins. Co., 447 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (loss reserves issues can bear on coverage and bad faith; discovery relevant)