Rhodes v. USAA Casualty Insurance
21 A.3d 1253
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Rhodeses sustained serious injuries after Rhodes drove a motorcycle; tortfeasor’s State Farm policy paid its $50,000 liability limit.
- Rhodeses notified underinsured motorist carriers USAA and Progressive about the UIM claim; Progressive paid $15,000.
- Rhodeses demanded $175,000 settlement; USAA offered initial $5,000 and multiple higher offers thereafter, including a $100,000 bottom line before settling at $175,000 in 2003.
- Rhodeses filed suit for bad faith handling of the UIM claim in 2004; trial court granted USAA summary judgment; this court reversed and remanded in 2008.
- On remand, trial court ordered Rhodeses to disclose their attorney Serbin’s entire work product file related to the underlying UIM claim to USAA; Rhodeses appealed.
- Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering disclosure of attorney work product, reversing the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery order to reveal work product from a non-party attorney was proper | Rhodeses: non-party file; Rule 4009.12/4009.21 applicable; not subject to compelled disclosure | USAA: need for attorney's file to assess bad faith; permissible discovery | Order improper; work product protected; reversed |
| Whether the order violated the work product doctrine via Rule 4003.3 | Protection applies to attorney mental impressions; files should not be disclosed | Explanatory notes authorize in camera review where relevant to later litigation | Protected; not discoverable in this bad faith action |
| Whether the collateral order doctrine supports immediate review of the discovery order | Discovery of privileged material is appealable under Rule 313 | Collateral review limited; broader challenges not proper | Yes, collateral order review applicable; but the order itself was improperly entered |
Key Cases Cited
- T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc., 950 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2008) (appealability of privileged discovery orders under collateral order doctrine)
- Gormley v. Edgar, 995 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review: abuse of discretion on discovery matters; plenary for questions of law)
- Berkeyheiser v. A-Plus Investigations, Inc., 936 A.2d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2007) (privileged material discoverable as collateral to main action when necessary to assess privilege)
- Birth Center v. St. Paul Companies, Inc., 727 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super. 1999) (explanatory note to Rule 4003.3 on when attorney work product may be discoverable)
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Association, 602 Pa. 65 (2009) (limited application of collateral order doctrine; issue-by-issue approach)
- The Birth Center v. St. Paul Cos., Inc., 727 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super. 1999) (support for in camera review to weed out protected material when state of mind is at issue)
- Rhoades v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 21 A.3d 1253 (Pa. Super. 2011) (develops standard for bad faith discovery and limits on obtaining attorney work product)