785 S.E.2d 257
W. Va.2016Background
- William and Sarah Bassett sued State Farm after an uninsured motorist collision, alleging State Farm failed to properly offer optional uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage and asserting unfair claim settlement practices and punitive damages.
- State Farm reformed the policies and paid Bassett additional UM benefits, resolving the coverage amount dispute; the remaining dispute centers on alleged unlawful business practices tied to the UM selection/rejection form State Farm used.
- Bassett served interrogatories seeking (1) the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of State Farm insureds in WV (2005–present) who had UM claims and whose policies lacked sufficient UM limits, (2) identification of those where multiple premium options appeared on the offer form, and (3) claims where State Farm "rolled-up" or reformed UM limits — including contact information for those insureds.
- The circuit court granted Bassett’s motion to compel full answers and allowed production under an agreed protective order; State Farm moved for reconsideration arguing privacy concerns for over 400 non-party insureds and seeking redaction or limits on contact.
- The circuit court denied reconsideration but restricted disclosure outside the litigation and warned against intrusive contact; State Farm petitioned this Court for prohibition.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals granted prohibition as moulded: State Farm must produce the forms used and quantitative data about payments, but must redact non-party insureds’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, and other personal information from interrogatory answers and supporting documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interrogatories seeking identifying information of non-party insureds are discoverable | Bassett: IDs are needed to prove a general business practice and frequency for unfair-practice and punitive-damages claims | State Farm: Disclosure of names/addresses/phones of >400 non-parties invades privacy and is unnecessary; protective order is inadequate | Court: Forms and quantitative data are discoverable; non-party identifying information must be redacted and withheld absent further court order |
| Whether the selection/rejection form used by State Farm is discoverable | Bassett: Form evidence from other insureds shows the form was materially different and supports loss of statutory presumption and pattern | State Farm: Objected as burdensome and privacy-invading but did provide forms generally | Court: The form given to non-parties is directly relevant and must be produced (redacted for identifying data) |
| Whether frequency/quantitative data about payments/reformations is discoverable | Bassett: Frequency supports general business practice and punitive damages | State Farm: Can be answered without identifying individual private data; privacy concerns remain | Court: Numerical information on when/how often State Farm paid or reformed policies is discoverable and should be produced without personal identifiers |
| Appropriateness of prohibition to review discovery order | Bassett: Discovery ruling was within trial court discretion | State Farm: Circuit court exceeded legitimate power by permitting disclosure of non-party identifiers and leaving inadequate safeguards | Court: Prohibition appropriate—circuit court erred as matter of law in permitting disclosure of non-party identifying information; error not correctable on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 188 W.Va. 622 (1992) (writ of prohibition can correct clear legal error in discovery orders)
- Cox v. Amick, 195 W.Va. 608 (1995) (statute creates presumption that signed Commissioner form constitutes effective offer and binding rejection)
- Bias v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 179 W.Va. 125 (1987) (insurer bears burden to prove effective offer of optional coverage; rejection must be knowing and informed)
- Thomas v. McDermitt, 232 W.Va. 159 (2013) (insurer’s use of a materially different form defeats statutory presumption; common-law review of commercial reasonableness applies after discovery)
- State ex rel. W.Va. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Karl, 202 W.Va. 471 (1998) (balance privacy of non-litigants and discovery; redaction of identifying info required while producing claim files)
- State ex rel. Vineyard v. O’Brien, 100 W.Va. 163 (1925) (writ of prohibition issues only in clear cases where lower tribunal proceeds without or in excess of jurisdiction)