Patterson v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 53 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The circumstances surrounding Mutual's decision to approve Ms. Norwood's claim and the decision-making process utilized in evaluating her claim have no bearing on the issues involved in this action. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WESLEY PATTERSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
V.
)
)
MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE )
COMPANY, a Nebraska Corporation, )
and JOHN DOE, a Corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

8:10CV26

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (filing 53).
Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
This case involves an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiff contends that injuries he
sustained while a student at Prairie View A&M University are covered under an insurance
policy issued by Defendant Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (“Mutual”). Mutual has
denied coverage.
Through his present Motion, Plaintiff requests that the court order Mutual to produce
its claim file related to Prairie View A&M cheerleader, Bethany Norwood. Ms. Norwood
was injured in a cheerleading practice at Prairie View in 2004. Mutual initially denied her
claim, but later determined that coverage existed. Plaintiff contends that Ms. Norwood’s file
is relevant and should be produced because Mutual initially denied Ms. Norwood’s claim on
the same basis as it denied his claim. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that he needs Ms.
Norwood’s claim file to determine the credibility of Mutual’s denial of his claim.
Mutual will not be compelled to produce Ms. Norwood’s claim file. The reason that
Mutual initially denied Ms. Norwood’s claim is irrelevant to whether coverage exists for

Plaintiff. See Penford Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 265 F.R.D.
430, 433 (N.D. Iowa 2009) (“Evidence of claims by other policyholders is not relevant to a
resolution of this issue. Penford’s contract claim will stand or fall on its own merits, based
on the provisions of the policy negotiated by the parties, irrespective of any claims made by
others.”). The question of whether Plaintiff is covered by the policy depends upon the facts
surrounding Plaintiff’s injury and the policy language. The circumstances surrounding
Mutual’s decision to approve Ms. Norwood’s claim and the decision-making process utilized
in evaluating her claim have no bearing on the issues involved in this action.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (filing 53) is denied.
DATED August 23, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

2