Tamara's Group LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co.

Filing 37

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Compel filed by plaintiff TamarasGroup, L.L.C.. Within 14 days, the defendant shall provide any interviews or statements taken by Hartford from the Tamaras employees, Ryan Robinson and Olider Medros Ramos, and any witnesses. No objections will be allowed. In all other respects, the plaintiffs Motion to Compel is denied. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(C), the parties shall bear their respective costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 11/26/2012. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TAMARA’S GROUP, L.L.C.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 12-205-JJB-SCR

HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED WITH
NUMBER 12-206-JJB-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the court is a Motion to Compel filed by plaintiff
Tamara’s Group, L.L.C.

Record document number 20.

The motion is

opposed by defendant Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company.1
Plaintiff

filed

two

Petitions

in

state

court

to

obtain

declaratory relief, and to recover damages and defense costs
incurred as a result of injuries to two of its employees, Ryan
Robinson and Olider Medros Ramos. According to the Petitions, both
employees were injured while allegedly performing land based cleanup work related to the BP oil spill.

Due to the circumstances

surrounding the injuries, the plaintiff’s worker’s compensation
carrier, defendant Hartford, found that the employees were not
state

workers

under

the

Louisiana

Worker’s

Compensation

Act.

Rather, it determined that they were seamen or crew members of a
vessel, and thus not eligible for worker’s compensation coverage
under the policy it issued to the plaintiff.

1

The employees filed

Record document number 26. Plaintiff filed a reply
memorandum. Record document number 32. Defendant filed a surreply memorandum. Record document number 31.

separate Jones Act lawsuits against the plaintiff, both of which
were ultimately settled.
Plaintiff

then

filed

the

state

court

suits

against

the

defendant alleging that both employees were covered under the
Louisiana

Worker’s

Compensation

Act

and

the

Hartford

policy.

Plaintiff also alleged that the defendant’s investigations into the
employees’ claims were inadequate, improper and in bad faith.
suits

were

removed

to

this

court

by

the

defendant

and

The
then

consolidated.
On

May

2,

2012,

the

plaintiff

propounded

two

sets

of

interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the
defendant, one for each individual suit.

After reviewing the

defendant’s responses, the plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel.
A review of the discovery requests and the parties’ arguments
supports the conclusion that the defendant should supplement its
discovery responses with any interviews and statements it obtained
from the two Tamara’s employees and any witnesses.

Defendant’s

relevance argument based on the eight-corners rule is unconvincing
as to the plaintiff’s coverage claim.2

As noted by the plaintiff,

this claim is separate and distinct from the duty to defend claim.

2

Louisiana's “Eight Corners Rule” requires a court to assess
whether there is a duty to defend by applying the allegations of
the complaint to the underlying policy without resort to extrinsic
evidence.
Martco Ltd. Partnership v. Wellons, Inc., 588 F.3d
864, 872 (5th Cir. 2009).
2

Theoretically, a plaintiff may prevail on a coverage claim even if
no duty to defend exists.3

Defendant’s reliance on Louisiana

Generating, L.L.C. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co. is misplaced because
a scheduling order was issued in that matter which preliminarily
limited discovery to the duty to defend.4
argued

that

the

allegations

in

the

Although the defendant
employees’

lawsuits

unambiguously excluded coverage under the policy, it has not shown
that the plaintiffs ares prohibited from using extrinsic evidence
to establish a factual basis for coverage.5

Therefore, discovery

outside of the eight-corners rule is allowed.
The circumstances where coverage exists without a duty to
defend are far less common than the inverse.6

An overview of the

allegations in the petition shows that finding a duty to defend the
employees’ suits is most unlikely.7

Because the plaintiff has not

provided any substantive factual or legal basis to establish

3

Martco Ltd. Partnership, supra.

4

2011 WL 3568197, 1 (M.D.La. Aug. 12, 2011)

5

See, Continental Holdings, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, 443 Fed.Appx.1 (5th Cir. 2011)(for purposes of determining
indemnity coverage under the unambiguous terms of the worker’s
compensation policy, extrinsic evidence was used to properly
understand and classify the injuries alleged in a employee’s
petition against their employer).
6

Martco Ltd. Partnership, 588 F.3d at 872, n.1.

7

See also record document number 18, Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
The district judge deferred ruling on the
motion, before the plaintiff filed a response, pending the ruling
on this Motion to Compel. Record document number 23.
3

coverage given the allegations in the employees’ petitions, only a
limited amount of discovery from the defendant’s claims file is
warranted at this time.

The theoretical possibility of coverage,

particularly when no duty to defend exists, is not enough to
justify the sort of extensive discovery requested by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s

bad

faith

claim

does

not

increase

the

scope

of

discovery here because it is dependent on the existence of coverage
in the first place.
Accordingly,

the

only

discoverable

documentation

to

be

supplemented at this time are statements obtained by Hartford from
the Tamara’s employees, Ryan Robinson and Olider Medros Ramos, and
from any witnesses.8

The additional discovery requested, such as

claims notes, coverage evaluations, Hartford’s protocol’s and
policies, is overbroad at this point in the case.
remaining

discovery

responses

addressed

in

the

Thus, the
motion

are

sufficient.
Plaintiff’s
responses,

request

instead

of

for

the

two

one

separate

set

of

sets

of

discovery

consolidated

responses

submitted by the defendant, is unwarranted. Although the facts and
circumstances surrounding the employees’ job duties and injuries
are different, the consolidated response format was reasonable in
light of the following facts: 1) the questions were identical

8

Defendant has not established the aforementioned interviews
and statements fall within work product protection or the attorneyclient privilege.
4

except for the employee, (2) most responses were identical for each
employee, and (3) when different, the responses clearly designated
information specific to each employee.

Because the accidents

occurred under completely different circumstances and will have
different

witnesses,

it

is

unlikely

that

a

consolidated

supplemental response will cause any confusion.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel filed by plaintiff Tamara’s
Group, L.L.C. is granted, in part and denied, in part.

Within 14

days, the defendant shall provide any interviews or statements
taken by Hartford from the Tamara’s employees, Ryan Robinson and
Olider Medros Ramos, and any witnesses.
allowed.

No objections will be

In all other respects, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

is denied.

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(C), the parties shall bear

their respective costs.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 26, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5