SILVER et al v. BAD BOY ENTERPRISES LLC et al

Filing 87

ORDER denying 80 Motion to Compel. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 03/21/2013.(CGC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
MARK SILVER, et al.,

*

Plaintiffs,

*

vs.

*

BAD BOY ENTERPRISES, LLC, et
al.,

CASE NO. 4:12-CV-5 (CDL)

*
*

Defendants.
*
O R D E R
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel (ECF No. 80).

The issue in this discovery dispute is

whether Defendant Bad Boy Enterprises (“BBE”) should be compelled
to disclose to Plaintiffs what, if any, insurance coverage remains
available

under

BBE’s

“eroding

limits”

policy.1

insurance

Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to this information.
BBE

contends

coverage

that

under

the

it

has

policy

no
and

duty
that

to
it

disclose

the

satisfied

remaining

all

of

its

obligations under the law by producing a copy of the applicable
insurance policy.

For the following reasons, the Court denies

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

1

In their Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs also asserted that BBE had not
produced all of the endorsements to the applicable policy, including an
endorsement naming Textron, Inc. and BB Buggies, Inc. as insureds.
In
response, BBE pointed to evidence that it had produced the relevant
endorsement on April 30, 2012.
Plaintiffs did not dispute BBE’s
assertion, and the Court finds that this issue is now moot.

It

is

undisputed

that

BBE

is

covered

by

a

“claims

made”

insurance policy with a single limit of $10 million for all claims
filed against BBE since the policy was issued.

As claims and

attorney’s fees are paid under the policy, the amount of insurance
coverage remaining to pay other claims is reduced.
Plaintiffs contend that BBE is required to supplement its
initial disclosures regularly to disclose the amount of coverage
remaining

under

the

policy.

disclosure

is

required

by

Plaintiffs
Federal

Rule

26(a)(1)(A)(iv) and by O.C.G.A. § 33-3-28.

contend
of

that

Civil

this

Procedure

The Court will address

each argument in turn.
As part of BBE’s initial disclosures, BBE was required to
provide

Plaintiffs

“any

insurance

agreement

under

which

an

insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a
possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for
payments

made

to

26(a)(1)(A)(iv).
applicable

satisfy

the

judgment.”

Fed.

R.

Civ.

It is undisputed that BBE produced a copy of the

policy,

including

the

declarations

page

showing

policy limits as of the date that the policy was issued.
Court

finds

that

P.

BBE

has

satisfied

the

requirement

of

the
The
Rule

26(a)(1)(A)(iv).
Plaintiffs also contend that O.C.G.A. § 33-3-28 requires BBE
to disclose the remaining amount of coverage under the applicable

2

policy.2

Under O.C.G.A. § 33-3-28, the insured must, in response

to a written request by a claimant, provide “the name of the
insurer, the name of each insured, and the limits of coverage.”
O.C.G.A. § 33-3-28(a)(1).

The “insurer may provide a copy of the

declaration page of each such policy in lieu of providing such
information.”

Id.

Plaintiffs pointed to no authority in support

of their argument that O.C.G.A. § 33-3-28 requires disclosure of
information regarding the remaining amount of coverage under the
policy.
not

only

Here, it is undisputed that BBE provided Plaintiffs with
the

declaration

insurance policy.

page

but

with

a

copy

of

the

entire

Therefore, the Court finds that BBE met its

obligations under O.C.G.A. § 33-3-28.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, BBE met its obligations under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) and O.C.G.A. § 33-3-28 by
producing a copy of the applicable insurance policy including the
declarations page.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 80) is

therefore denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of March, 2013.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

BBE disputes that Plaintiffs made a proper request under O.C.G.A. § 333-28, but the Court assumes for purposes of the pending motion that
Plaintiffs did make a proper request.

3