Renfrow v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16329
D. Nev.2013Background
- Renfrew filed an emergency motion to compel production of a claims file and related materials; the motion was opposed and a hearing was held January 30, 2013.
- Defendants moved to bifurcate the extra-contractual claims or stay discovery on those claims; the court also addressed related discovery motions.
- Plaintiff previously filed suit in Nevada state court; it was removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- The case involves alleged bad faith handling of an underinsured motorist/contract claim and related breach of contract and extra-contractual claims.
- The court set deadlines and scheduled discovery, expert disclosures, and a JPTO; discovery issues centered on the claims file, underwriting files, and related materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether production of the claims file is proper | Renfrew: claims file discovery relevant to bad faith; work-product/attorney-client privilege should not bar production | Redwood: claims file premature and largely irrelevant to breach; only responsive under certain conditions | Qualified; claims file ordered to be produced or sealed as specified |
| Whether to bifurcate the extra-contractual claims from the breach claim | Bad faith claims arise from handling of the claim and should be considered concurrently | Bifurcate to resolve UIM/contract issues first; discovery stayed | Bifurcation denied; claims to be tried together |
| Whether sanctions for discovery violations are warranted | Defendants’ late responses and withholding the log warrant sanctions | No sanction warranted given counsel changes and extensions | Sanctions denied; no award of fees |
| Extension of expert disclosure deadlines | Need more time to prepare bad faith expert after claims file production | Existing schedule should control; no extension | Expert deadline extended to March 15, 2013 with meet-and-confer on rebuttal deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (broad scope of discovery; relevance broader for discovery than trial)
- Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1992) (opinion work product may be discoverable when mental impressions at issue)
- Schmidt v. California State Auto. Ass’n, 127 F.R.D. 182 (D. Nev. 1989) (claims file not entirely shielded by privilege; routine processing materials may be discoverable)
- Wohlers & Co. v. Bartgis, 114 Nev. 1249, 969 P.2d 949 (Nev. 1998) (NRS 686A.310 bad-faith standards may apply even without denial of claim)
- Schumacher v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 467 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Nev. 2006) (Nevada insurance regulations address handling of claims regardless of denial)