Bennett v. Cox et al

Filing 20

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered granting 13 Motion to sever and stay all proceedings and discovery as to the bad faith claim against it pending resolution of the tort claims against Barbara Cox and Cox Co., Inc. (Danieli, Chris)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-10048-GAO
TAMMY BENNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARBARA COX, COX CO., INC., and ARBELLA PROTECTION INSURANCE CO.,
Defendants.

ORDER
July 22, 2013
O’TOOLE, D.J.
This case arises from a motor vehicle accident which caused the death of the plaintiff’s
husband. The plaintiff brings claims of negligence and wrongful death against Barbara Cox, the
dumpster truck driver allegedly responsible for the accident, and her employer Cox. Co., Inc.
The plaintiff also brings a claim against Arbella Protection Insurance Co. under M.G.L. c. 93A
and 176D, claiming that it has, in bad faith, failed to make a reasonable offer of settlement.
Arbella moves (dkt. no. 13) to sever and stay proceedings as to the claim against it pending the
resolution of the underlying tort claims.
Arbella contends that the claim against it is premature and that the underlying tort claims
should proceed first, pointing to several Massachusetts state court decisions granting stays of
discovery as to bad faith claims against insurers. Arbella also contends that allowing discovery
will compromise its defense efforts because protected and privileged information may be
disclosed. The plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that a stay is not necessary because her
claim against Arbella is ripe, and a stay would prejudice her by delaying resolution of all claims.

Although the plaintiff correctly points out that Massachusetts law does not require that
claims against insurers be stayed pending resolution of the underlying claims against the insured,
it is also true that:
there is a body of unpublished, single justice decisions from the Supreme Judicial
Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court that have, on interlocutory appeal,
stayed proceedings and discovery in G.L. c. 93A litigation based upon G.L. c.
176D. These decisions note that a motion to sever G.L. c. 93A claims and stay
discovery is routinely allowed, if only to prevent discovery of the insurer’s
impressions of the case based upon legal theory and privileged communications,
and thereby prevent interference with the insured’s right to be adequately
defended.
Sanchez v. Witham, 2003 Mass. App. Div. 48, at *4 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 2003) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
In this case, claims involving the underlying dispute which is the subject of the insurance
policy at issue have been brought and are pending resolution. After weighing the possibility of
unfair prejudice to either party and the interests of judicial economy, among other
considerations, the Court determines that severing and staying the bad faith claim against Arbella
is appropriate.
Arbella’s Motion (dkt. no. 13) to sever and stay all proceedings and discovery as to the
bad faith claim against it pending resolution of the tort claims against Barbara Cox and Cox Co.,
Inc., is GRANTED.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2