99 Wall Development Inc. v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company

Filing 134

OPINION & ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL: For the reasons set forth above, 99 Wall's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Allied shall produce the documents on its log by June 21, 2019, consistent with the above. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 6/14/2019) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
99 WALL DEVELOPMENT INC.,
Plaintiff,
-against-

06/14/2019

OPINION & ORDER ON MOTION
TO COMPEL
18-CV-126 (RA) (KHP)

ALLIED WORLD SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
formerly known as DARWIN NATIONAL ASSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff 99 Wall Development Inc. (“99 Wall”) is seeking payments under a Commercial
Inland Marine Property insurance policy provided by Defendant Allied World Specialty
Insurance Company (“Allied”).1 The insurance payments are for losses sustained from two
major water leaks that damaged a 29-story office building that 99 Wall was converting into
residential condominiums, causing significant repair costs and delay in completion of the
conversion project. The two water-related losses occurred on July 29, 2016 and October 6,
2016. The first incident involved rain water leaking through the roof of the building and causing
damage to the building’s elevators. The second incident involved a leak from a water tank on
the 25th floor of the building, causing extensive damage to various condominium units and
common areas.

1

Allied was formerly known as Darwin National Assurance Company.

99 Wall timely submitted claims to Allied. As part of its investigation into the claims,
Allied requested documents from 99 Wall including the construction schedule and
modifications to the schedule, invoices, and various contracts for the project. While it was
investigating, Allied advanced certain amounts to 99 Wall and ultimately paid more amounts
that it deemed were covered under the policy. However, 99 Wall contends that more amounts
are due under the policy—in particular, for losses caused by the delay in the completion of the
project. In February 2017, Allied informed 99 Wall that it needed to further investigate the
delay and causes for it. In May 2017, Allied informed 99 Wall of its final coverage position—
that the policy did not cover costs associated with the delay in the project.
Subsequently, 99 Wall brought this action for breach of contract. In connection with
this claim, 99 Wall alleges that Allied acted in bad faith throughout its investigation and
adjustment of its insurance claims. It contends that Allied did not promptly pay amounts it
knew were due under the policy and attempted to take advantage of 99 Wall’s precarious
financial situation by offering less than full coverage under the policy.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of certain
documents listed on Allied’s privilege log. (ECF No. 100.) In connection with the motion, 99
Wall identified one hundred representative documents on the log for this Court’s in camera
review. Allied subsequently produced 20 of the 100 documents, leaving 80 for the Court to
review in camera. A portion of the documents were withheld in total on the grounds they were
protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work product doctrine. The remaining
documents were produced in redacted format, with the redacted portions withheld on the
2

same grounds, as well as relevance grounds to the extent the redactions pertain to litigation
reserves set aside for 99 Wall’s claim and reinsurance coverage amount changes related to 99
Wall’s claim.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
LEGAL STANDARDS
1. Scope of Discovery
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) sets the boundaries for discovery. A party may
request and obtain non-privileged information relevant to its claims and defenses and
proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 1, both parties are obliged to pursue discovery within the limits of Rule 26(b)(1) and
in a manner designed to result in a speedy resolution with as minimal costs as possible. Here,
the parties dispute the relevance of reserve and reinsurance information. If a document is not
relevant, the Court need not address whether the document is privileged. If a document is
relevant and privileged, the party asserting privilege has the burden of demonstrating it is
privileged. See, e.g., United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing von Bulow ex
rel. Auersperg v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987)); In re Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d
62, 68-70, 409 N.E.2d 983, 986-87, (1980); Hoopes v. Carota, 142 A.D.2d 906, 910, 531 N.Y.S.2d
407, 410 142 A.D.2d 906, 910 (3rd Dep’t 1988), aff’d 74 N.Y.2d 716, 543 N.E.2d 73 (1989).
2. Attorney-Client Privilege
In diversity cases such as this, where state law governs the claims, the Court looks to
state law for determining privilege. E.g., AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 07 Civ. 7052(SHS)(HBP),
3

2008 WL 4067437, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2008) (citations omitted) (applying New York
law), modified on reconsideration, No. 07 Civ. 7052(SHS)(HBP), 2009 WL 1953039 (S.D.N.Y. July
8, 2009); see also Fed. R. Evid. 501.
Under New York law, the attorney-client privilege protects communications between
client and counsel made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice that were
intended to be and in fact kept confidential. Bowne of N.Y.C., Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 161 F.R.D.
258, 264 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 82–84, 549 N.E.2d 1183, 1185
(1989)). The privilege is narrowly construed because it renders relevant information
undiscoverable. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981); see also Hoopes, supra,
142 A.D.2d 906 at 908, 531 N.Y.S.2d 407 at 409 (explaining that the attorney-client privilege
“constitutes an obstacle to the truth-finding process” and, thus, its “invocation . . . should be
cautiously observed to ensure that its application is consistent with its purpose” (internal
quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted)).
Internal investigation notes and documents also may be privileged. Because the “first
step in the resolution of any legal problem is ascertaining the factual background and sifting
through the facts with an eye to the legally relevant,” Upjohn, supra, , 449 U.S. at 390-91,
factual investigations conducted or directed by an attorney fall within the attorney-client
rubric. Id. at 391 (employee factual responses to questionnaires from counsel in connection
with internal investigation to provide legal advice protected by attorney-client privilege); Gucci
Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 271 F.R.D. 58, 71 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citations omitted) (collecting cases).

4

Finally, draft documents sent to counsel for legal review may be protected by the
attorney-client privilege if the draft and communications concerning it were intended to be and
maintained as confidential. See Bowne of N.Y.C., Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 456, 490
(S.D.N.Y. 1993) (citing Kenford v. Cty. of Erie, 55 A.D.2d 466, 469, 471, 390 N.Y.S.2d 715, 719
(4th Dep’t 1977)); S.E.C. v. Beacon Hill Asset Mgmt. LLC, 231 F.R.D. 134, 145 (S.D.N.Y. 2004);
Softview Comput. Prods. Corp. v. Haworth, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 8815 (KMW) (HBP), 2000 WL
351411, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2000); Sequa Corp. v. Gelmin, No. 91 Civ. 8675 (CSH), 1994 WL
538124, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 1994). Similarly, “drafts of documents prepared by an attorney
for subsequent transmission to third parties may be “protected by the attorney-client privilege”
if the draft contains “confidential information communicated by the client to the attorney that
is maintained in confidence.” Beacon Hill Asset Mgmt. LLC, supra, 231 F.R.D. at 145 (citing In re
Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, supra, 731 F.2d 1032, 1037 (2d Cir.
1984)); Softview Comp. Prods. Corp., supra , 2000 WL 351411 at *15; ECDC Envtl. L.C. v. N.Y.
Marine & Gen. Ins. Co., supra, 1998 WL 614478 at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 1998)). “A draft is not
privileged simply because it is prepared by an attorney.” Id. (citing Koumoulis v. Independent
Financial Marketing Group, Inc., 295 F.R.D. 28, n.23 (E.D.N.Y. 2013); Bowne 1993, supra,, 150
F.R.D. at 490 (citing Kenford, supra, 390 N.Y.S.2d at 719)).
3. Work Product Doctrine
“Unlike the attorney-client privilege, the work product protection in diversity cases is
governed by federal law.” Bowne of N.Y.C., Inc., 161 F.R.D. at 264 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Fine v.
Facet Aerospace Prods. Co., 133 F.R.D. 439, 444–45 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)). Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(3)
5

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, documents and tangible things prepared by a party or
its representative in anticipation of litigation are protected under the work product doctrine.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); Welland v. Trainer, No. 00 Civ. 0738(JSM), 2001 WL 1154666, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2001) (“Where a document is created because of the prospect of litigation”
it is eligible for work product protection (internal quotation marks omitted)) (quoting United
States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 1202 (2d Cir. 1998)); see also Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495
(1947) (establishing and articulating application of the work product doctrine). The key factor in
determining applicability of this doctrine is whether the documents or things were prepared
“with an eye toward,” Hickman, supra, 329 U.S. at 510-511, or “in anticipation of,” Schaeffler v.
United States, 806 F.3d 34, 43 (2d Cir. 2015), or “because of the prospect of litigation.” Adlman,
supra, 134 F.3d at 1202. “[T]he doctrine is not satisfied merely by a showing that the material
was prepared at the behest of a lawyer or was provided to a lawyer. Rather the materials must
result from the conduct of ‘investigative or analytical tasks to aid counsel in preparing for
litigation.’” In re Symbol Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV 05-3923 (DRH) (AKT), 2017 WL 1233842
(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017) (quoting Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 384, 393-94 (S.D.N.Y.
2015)).
Thus, a court must determine if the materials would have been prepared “‘in essentially
similar form irrespective of the litigation.’” Id., at *8 (quoting Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1202); Clarke
v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 08-cv-2400 (CM) (DF), 2009 WL 970940, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10,
2009). But, unlike the rule for invoking attorney-client privilege, the predominant purpose of
the work product need not be to assist with litigation to be protected; rather, the work product
6

need only have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. Adlman, 134
F.3d at 1202; In re Symbol Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 1233842, at *8.
The setting of litigation reserves sometimes is found to be protected from disclosure by
the work product doctrine. See, e.g., Lava Trading, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 03 Civ.7037
(PKC) (MHD), 2005 WL 66892, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2005) (noting court’s ruling precluding
discovery of “reserves . . . was based on the notion that such specific figures represent work
product, since they are normally created because of the anticipation of litigation.”); In re Pfizer
Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 90 Civ. 1260 (SS), 1994 WL 263610, at *1–2 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 1994) (finding
“if a document sets forth the methodology for calculating the case reserve for an individual
claimant, it is privileged as work product (and perhaps also as an attorney-client
communication),” but “if a document describes the methodology for determining an aggregate
case reserve, it is not entitled to the work product or attorney-client privileges (emphasis
added)); Sundance Cruises Corp. v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, No. 87 Civ. 0819 (WK), 1992 WL
75097, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 1992) (finding that “to the extent reserves ‘are an indication of
potential liability’ . . . they might be based in large part upon the opinions of counsel and would,
therefore, be protected from disclosure”).
At the same time, Allied states that that the setting of a reserve is a business judgment
and notes that New York statutes require an insurance company to set reserves, which are used
to determine an insurer’s financial condition. N.Y. Ins. Law § 4117 (McKinney); N.Y. Ins. Law §
1303 (McKinney).

7

4. Waiver
A party may waive privilege or work product protection by voluntarily disclosing
otherwise protected information to a third party. The party asserting privilege has the burden
of establishing that there has been no waiver. Spectrum Sys. Int'l Corp., 78 N.Y.2d
at 377, 581 N.E.2d at 1059; Hoopes, 142 A.D.2d at 909, 531 N.Y.S.2d at 409; see also, e.g.,
Pearlstein v. BlackBerry Ltd., No. 13-CV-07060 (CM)(KHP), 2019 WL 1259382, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 19, 2019). Slightly different rules govern waiver of attorney-client privilege and work
product protection. In the case of the attorney-client privilege, “if the holder of the privilege
voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter or
communication over which the privilege is claimed,” the privilege is waived. Id. (quoting
Fullerton v. Prudential Ins. Co., 194 F.R.D. 100, 102 (S.D.N.Y 2000); New York Times Newspaper
Div. of New York Times Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 300 A.D.2d 169, 172, 752 N.Y.S.2d
642, 645–46 (1st Dep’t 2002) (“Disclosure of a privileged document generally operates as a
waiver of the privilege unless it is shown that the client intended to maintain the confidentiality
of the document, [and] that reasonable steps were taken to prevent disclosure . . . .” (citations
omitted)).
Unlike the attorney-client privilege, work product protection is not waived merely
because the material is disclosed to a third party. See, e.g., Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1200 n. 4 (work
product may be shown to others “simply because there [is] some good reason to show it”
without waiving the protection). Protection is waived only when work product is disclosed to a
third party in a manner that is inconsistent with the purpose of the protection. See In re
8

Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 235 (2d Cir. 1993); In re Symbol Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2017
WL 1233842, at *9 (disclosure that substantially increases the opportunities for potential
adversaries to obtain the information results in a waiver of work product protection); In re Visa
Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 190 F.R.D. 309, 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (purpose of work
product doctrine is “to keep counsel's work from his opponent in the litigation so that it will not
be used against him”).
Here, to the extent Allied communicated with third-party reinsurers, any privilege or
work product protection would be waived as to information conveyed unless there were a
common interest privilege shared by the reinsurer and Allied. See Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v.
Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 284 F.R.D. 132, 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Here, Allied has not asserted any
common interest privilege with its reinsurers. And, “a common interest cannot be assumed
merely on the basis of the status of the parties [as insurer and reinsurer].” N. River Ins. Co. v.
Columbia Cas. Co., No. 90 CIV. 2518 (MJL), 1995 WL 5792, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 1995).
With the above standards in mind, the Court’s analysis of the parties’ privilege
arguments is set forth below.
DISCUSSION
Having carefully reviewed the 80 documents submitted for in camera review, it is clear
that Allied was overly zealous in withholding and redacting documents as privileged and/or
work product. The documents presented to the Court include communications and other
documents reflecting Allied’s investigation of the claim for purposes of determining its
coverage position, counsel’s determination of subrogation rights, draft letters to 99 Wall and/or
9

its counsel regarding Allied’s investigation and coverage position, a draft waiver agreement
between the parties pertaining to settlement discussions pre-litigation, correspondence
regarding claims processing, information about the setting of reserves and adjustments to
reinsurance coverage.
The Court first addresses redactions based on relevance, as this is a threshold issue.
Allied argues that information about reserves and reinsurance is not relevant. Relevance of
reserve information is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,
Pa. v. H & R Block, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 1505(AT)(HBP), 2014 WL 4377845, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4,
2014). Courts in this District have found reserve information relevant where bad faith has been
alleged. See id. at *4-5 (finding that the establishment of a reserve has probative value and is
discoverable, especially where a bad faith refusal to pay is alleged); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. ,
supra, 284 F.R.D. at 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (directing insurer to produce reserve information as
relevant and because it may reflect the insurer’s “own beliefs about coverage and their liability”
(quoting U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bunge North America, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 638, 645 (D. Kan. 2007)); 866
E. 164th St., LLC v. Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 16-CV- 03678 (SN), 2016 WL 6901321, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2016) (finding that changes in reserves throughout the investigation of an
insurance claim relevant to whether defendant improperly denied plaintiff’s claim).
Although New York does not recognize a separate cause of action for bad faith, courts
permit bad faith allegations to be included in a complaint as part of a breach of contract cause
of action. Woodhams v. Allstate Fire and Cas. Co., 748 F. Supp. 2d 211, 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2010);
Rockville Ctr. v. Gen. Reinsurance Corp., No. 16 CIV. 02063 (CM), 2016 WL 5793996, at *3-4
10

(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016)). Plaintiff has included bad faith allegations in its complaint in
connection with its breach of contract claim in support of its request for consequential
damages and attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 128.) As such, I find that reserve information is relevant
under the broad relevance standard of Rule 26(b)(1).
Similarly, the relevance of reinsurance information is determined on a case-by-case
basis. Most courts to address the issue have found that reinsurance information is relevant,
however. Suffolk Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 141, 142 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)
(finding reinsurance information relevant to allow both parties to properly appraise the case).
Those courts that have held reserve information to be relevant have explained that reserve
information might shed light on an insurer’s understanding of a claim and assessment of a
claim’s value and is therefore relevant. See Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., supra, 284 F.R.D. at 137–
38; Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Gypsum Co., No. 86 CIV. 9671 (SWK), 1988 WL 96159, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 1988). Other courts have found that some reinsurance information is
irrelevant even while finding the reinsurance agreements themselves were discoverable. See,
e.g., Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 2016 WL 2858815, at *4
(E.D.N.Y. May 16, 2016) (denying an insured’s motion to compel communications with
reinsurer). In this case, I find that reinsurance information is relevant for the same reason that
the reserve information is relevant—it sheds light on Allied’s internal evaluations of the extent
of 99 Wall’s losses. Differences between its internal assessment and coverage position may be
relevant to Allied’s good/bad faith compliance with its contractual obligations under the policy.

11

Turning to privilege, the vast majority of documents withheld or redacted are not in fact
privileged because they do not seek or convey legal advice. For example, several of the
documents on Allied’s log are email communications scheduling calls with its attorney. These
are not privileged. Some documents are redacted because they mention that counsel has been
retained. The fact of retention of an attorney is not privileged. A number of draft documents
prepared by Allied’s counsel for ultimate dissemination to 99 Wall or its counsel also are not
privileged as far as this Court can tell. No legal advice or confidential information appears in
the drafts, and Allied has not otherwise provided information to demonstrate why these drafts
should be privileged. A number of the drafts are letters for McLarens, the loss adjuster who
was retained to investigate the claim, to send to 99 Wall. The draft letters advise 99 Wall that
McLaren has been retained to investigate the nature, scope and cause of the claimed loss and
damage under the policy and request additional information from 99 Wall as part of its
investigation. As noted above, the mere fact that an attorney prepared a draft does not make it
privileged. Nothing in the draft letters appears to be confidential information communicated
by the client to the attorney that was intended to be maintained in confidence. Similarly, these
drafts would not be work product because they would not have been prepared differently in
the normal course of business—Allied was obliged to investigate the insurance claim in order to
determine what damage it would cover under the policy. Indeed, under New York law,
“documents prepared in the ordinary course of an insurer’s business (which by its nature,
involves claim investigation and analysis) are not protected from discovery, even when they are
provided to or prepared by counsel.” 866 E. 164th St., LLC, supra, 2016 WL 6901321, at *1
12

(quoting OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Forman Int'l, Ltd., No. 04 CIV. 2271 (RWS), 2006 WL 3771010, at
*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2006)). See also Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. TransCanada
Energy USA, Inc., 119 A.D.3d 492, 493, 990 N.Y.S.2d 510, 511–12 (2014) (“The record shows
that the insurance companies retained counsel to provide a coverage opinion, i.e. an opinion as
to whether the insurance companies should pay or deny the claims. Further, the record shows
that counsel were primarily engaged in claims handling – an ordinary business activity for an
insurance company”).
On the other hand, a few documents on Allied’s log were properly withheld as privileged
and/or work product to the extent they contained counsel’s legal assessment of claims,
revealed legal advice sought or conveyed by counsel, and reflected counsel’s investigation of
the claim for purposes of providing advice on coverage and this litigation, including reserve
amounts. The Court notes that much of the redacted reserve information appears to be the
company’s internal business decisions on the reserve level and does not reflect counsel’s advice
on the reserve. The factual level of the reserve is not privileged and, as Allied notes, is a
business judgment and requirement of New York law. An insurance company must set reserves
to pay claims under its policies. Thus, in the context of an insurance claim, the proposition that
reserve decisions are privileged holds less weight than in other litigation contexts. Nonetheless,
there are a few redactions where the information redacted appears to reflect advice of counsel
about the rationale for the reserve level in the context of this litigation and therefore is
privileged and/or work product. The same reasoning applies to the documents that contain
information about reinsurance.
13

The Court attaches a chart setting forth a summary of its ruling as to each of the 80
documents.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, 99 Wall’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Allied shall produce the documents on its log by June 21, 2019, consistent with the above.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2019
New York, New York
______________________________
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge

14

Document Number 

Privilege Asserted

Court's Ruling

AWAC0000758
AWAC0005618
AWAC0005950*

Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0005963*

Attorney Client

A/C and WP 
Not A/C; WP
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
WP because 
prospect of 
litigation
NP; no legal advice 
conveyed or sought

AWAC0005968
AWAC0005982

Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0005986

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0005991
AWAC0006032*

Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client

AWAC0001903
AWAC0002413*
AWAC0005518

Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client

A/C and WP
Not Relevant
NP; no legal advice 
conveyed or sought

AWAC0009687

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0009693

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0009698

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0009759
AWAC0009778
AWAC0009786

Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client; Work Product

Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP
WP
WP
WP

A/C and WP 
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP
A/C and WP
NP; no legal advice 
conveyed or sought

AWAC0010213

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0010228

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0010489

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0010517

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0010564

Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP
Not A/C because 
not legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP

Attorney Client

AWAC0010569

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0010574

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0010595

NP; no legal advice 
conveyed or sought
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or  
sought; not WP
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP

Attorney Client
NP; no legal advice 
conveyed or sought

AWAC0010648

AWAC0011324
AWAC0011942
AWAC0011947

Attorney Client

Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client; Work Product

NP; no legal advice 
conveyed or sought
A/C & WP
A/C & WP
Not A/C because  no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
WP

AWAC0000946 – AWAC0000947

Reserves; Attorney Client

AWAC0001498 – AWAC0001499

Reserves; Attorney Client

AWAC0002393 – AWAC0002394

Reserves; Attorney Client

AWAC0002688 – AWAC0002716

Reinsurance; Reserves; Attorney 
Client;

AWAC0001684 – AWAC0001710
AWAC0003799 – AWAC0003801
AWAC0002631 – AWAC0002636
AWAC0011792 – AWAC0011795

Reserves; Attorney Client
Reserves
Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client

AWAC0002475 – AWAC0002477
AWAC0004884 – AWAC0004886
AWAC0004887 – AWAC0004890
AWAC0001979 – AWAC0001980
AWAC0001052 – AWAC0001053

Reserves
Reserves
Reserves
Reserves
Reserves

Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
unredact Reserve 
change history  
insofar as it 
indicates change 
dates and TBD 
amounts and 
Description of 
Reserve 
Change/Reason 
Notice; unredact 
information in 
section labeled 
damage/injury 
assessment and 
procedure history 
and current status 
same as 0000946‐
947
same as 0000946‐
947 except 
unredact in section 
called case 
evaluation
A/C and WP in part; 
advice and invoices 
from Cozen and 
Mound Cotton & 
Wollan & 
Greengrass can 
remain redacted; 
other portions to be 
unredacted
same as 0002688
unredact
A/C & WP
Not A/C because 
does not reveal 
legal advice sought 
or conveyed
unredact
unredact
unredact
unredact
unredact

AWAC0000798 – AWAC0000802
AWAC0001962 – AWAC0001966
AWAC0010267 – AWAC0010269

Reserves
Reserves
Attorney Client

AWAC0000837 – AWAC0000840
AWAC0010460 – AWAC0010464

Reserves
Attorney Client; Work Product;

unredact
unredact
Not A/C because 
not conveying or 
requesting legal 
advice
unredact

A/C & WP
AWAC0000857 – AWAC0000859
AWAC0001073 – AWAC0001076

Reserves; Attorney Client; Work 
Product;
Reserves; Attorney Client; Work 
Product

AWAC0000829 – AWAC0000833

Reinsurance; Reserves; Attorney 
Client

AWAC0000948 – AWAC0000950

Not A/C; WP

Not A/C; WP
A/C and WP as to 
redactions on 829‐
830; otherwise 
unredact

Reserves

unredact
AWAC0009863 – AWAC0009868

Attorney Client; Work Product
redaction on 9864 is 
A/C & WP; 
otherwise unredact 

AWAC0009870 – AWAC0009875

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0009968 – AWAC0009973

Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0010132 – AWAC0010134

Attorney Client; Work Product

redaction on 9871 is 
A/C & WP; 
otherwise unredact
redaction on 
0009969 is A/C & 
WP; otherwise 
unredact
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP

AWAC0010135 – AWAC0010136

Attorney Client; Work Product
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP

AWAC0005690 – AWAC0005692

Attorney Client
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought

AWAC0005683 – AWAC0005686

Attorney Client
NP; no legal advice 
conveyed or sought

AWAC0002172 – AWAC0002174

Reinsurance; Reserves
unredact

AWAC0002108 – AWAC0002109

Reserves; Attorney Client
unredact; not A/C

AWAC0002494 – AWAC0002496

Reserves
unredact

AWAC0009729 – AWAC0009735

Attorney Client; Work Product
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought; 
not WP

AWAC0005775 – AWAC0005781

Attorney Client; Work Product
A/C & WP except 
redaction on 
0005775

AWAC0005674 – AWAC0005678

AWAC0005655 – AWAC0005657
AWAC0005599 – AWAC0005601

Attorney Client

Attorney Client; Work Product
Attorney Client

Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought
A/C & WP
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought

AWAC0010238 – AWAC0010241

Attorney Client
Not A/C because no 
legal advice 
conveyed or sought

AWAC0001942 – AWAC0001946

Reserves
unredact

AWAC0001469 – AWAC0001473

Reserves; Attorney Client; Work 
Product

AWAC0001280 – AWAC0001283

Reserves; Attorney Client; Work 
Product

AWAC0003866 – AWAC0003904
AWAC0003799 – AWAC0003801
AWAC0002631 – AWAC0002636

Reserves
Reserves
Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0001529 – AWAC0001534
AWAC0002637 – AWAC0002642

Attorney Client
Attorney Client; Work Product

AWAC0010186 – AWAC0010189
AWAC0003160 – AWAC0003165

Reserves
Attorney Client

most is NP; 
unredact except for 
redaction on 
0001471, which is 
A/C & WP
most is NP; 
unredact except for 
redaction on 
0001280‐81, which 
is A/C & WP
unredact
unredact

A/C & WP
Not A/C; unredact

NP; unredact
unredact
A/C; unredact