Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. Heidler
2016 Ohio 455
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On May 6, 2014, Jonathan Heidler's home and vehicle were destroyed by fire; Heidler claimed ~ $1.25M under Nationwide homeowner and auto policies; Wilmington Savings held the mortgage and was a defendant.
- Nationwide retained a certified fire investigator (Tom Bensen) who inspected the scene and ultimately concluded the fire was incendiary/arson; Bensen’s detailed written report was delivered to Nationwide on July 7–8, 2014.
- Nationwide assigned a Special Investigations Unit to the claim in May 2014 and thereafter refused to produce its underwriting, claim, and agent files (and to fully answer interrogatories), asserting work-product and related privileges.
- Heidler moved to compel; the trial court ordered production of documents created or obtained before October 16, 2014 and required Nationwide to answer contention interrogatories about evidence supporting its defenses, while protecting attorney impressions and legal theories.
- Nationwide appealed, arguing (1) the work-product doctrine protected all materials generated after assignment to SIU (May 2014) and (2) the interrogatories improperly invade attorney work product. The court reviewed legal questions de novo and factual privilege determinations for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nationwide) | Defendant's Argument (Heidler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did Nationwide begin preparing for litigation so as to trigger work-product protection? | Work-product protection attaches from May 11, 2014 (SIU assignment) and therefore protects documents created after that date. | Documents generated before October 16, 2014 were ordinary claims materials and discoverable; trial court used Oct. 16, 2014 as the cut-off. | Court finds trial court erred on the date; holds work-product protection attaches on July 8, 2014 (day after Bensen’s arson report). Documents on/after July 8, 2014 are protected. |
| Are Nationwide’s contention interrogatories requesting evidence supporting defenses discoverable or protected attorney work product? | Responses would reveal attorney mental impressions, legal strategy, and thus are privileged. | Heidler argued entitlement to identify factual basis/evidence supporting Nationwide’s pleaded defenses; contention interrogatories are permissible. | Court affirms trial court: Nationwide must answer interrogatories identifying evidence supporting defenses, but need not disclose attorney impressions, opinions, or legal theories. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth. v. Guzzo, 6 Ohio St.3d 270 (procedural standard for reviewing factual privilege determinations)
- Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164 (party claiming work-product bears burden)
- Perfection Corp. v. Traveler's Cas. & Sur., 153 Ohio App.3d 28 (distinguishing ordinary claims investigation from anticipation of litigation)
- Alpha Benefits Agency, Inc. v. King Ins. Agency, Inc., 134 Ohio App.3d 673 (contention interrogatories and discovery of factual bases)
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (liberal discovery policy under Ohio rules)
- State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessaman, 34 Ohio St.2d 55 (purpose of liberal discovery to narrow issues)
- Tayler v. Travelers Ins. Co., 183 F.R.D. 67 (analysis of when insurer’s activity shifts from ordinary claims handling to anticipation of litigation)