Morrison v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 3:23-cv-00451

Plaintiff Gary Morrison suffered a flood loss on May 6, 2022, at his insured property with a replacement cost flood insurance policy issued by Indian Harbor Insurance Company (administered by Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc.).
Plaintiff claims he performed immediate repairs after the flood, including significant restoration efforts and replacing damaged systems.
Defendants paid Plaintiff the actual cash value of the loss ($32,921.06 minus a $5,000 deductible), asserting Plaintiff had not proven expenses exceeding that amount for full replacement cost recovery.
Morrison filed suit for breach of contract, bad faith, and violation of West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act, including on behalf of similarly situated insureds.
Indian Harbor moved to compel more specific discovery responses from Plaintiff, arguing deficiencies in answers to requests for admission and interrogatories.
The Court reviewed the disputed discovery responses and issued an order granting the motion in part and denying it in part, with each party to bear its own costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Request for Admission on spending	Cost includes time/resources, not just cash spent	Sought straight admission/denial whether > $32,921.06 spent	Plaintiff's answer (admitted no more than $32,921.06 cash) was adequate
Request for Admission on exceeding cost	Response vague: cost (including time) >= $32,921.06	Wanted clear admission/denial	Denied as duplicative of earlier request
Document production (RFA #4)	Denied full production; says some documents are missing	Plaintiff’s answer was paradoxical/confusing	Plaintiff (must amend response within 7 days)
Interrogatory on actual spending	Referenced total cost including non-cash resources	Sought a specific monetary figure for spent amount	Plaintiff must supplement response with a specific amount
Hot water heater interrogatory	Gave rough date, said records missing	Wanted full info re: install, purchase details, cost	Plaintiff must supplement with all available details
Interrogatory re: admissions basis	Did not explain basis for certain denials/qualifications	Wanted explanations for each RFA not unequivocally admitted	Must supplement re: RFA #1 within 7 days
Expert disclosure specificity	Stated topics for testimony, not detail	Wanted specifics on amounts, time spent, etc	Plaintiff’s answer adequate; denial of further supplementation

Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. BioMedomics, Inc., 21 F.4th 1132 (E.D.N.C. 2021) (construing the scope of relevancy for discovery)
Philips N. Am. LLC v. Probo Med. LLC, 177 F.4th 243 (4th Cir. 2022) (court's role in limiting fishing expeditions in discovery)
Tinsley v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 4 F. Supp. 3d 805 (S.D.W. Va. 2014) (burden on party resisting discovery to justify objection)