Chubb Custom Insurance Company v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company et al

Filing 142

OPINION AND ORDER - Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce documents consistent with the foregoing to defendant by 5/18/12. Defendant will then have until 6/15/12 to file its opposition to plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 5/11/12. (jr1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHUBB CUSTOM INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:07-CV-1285
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King

GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for in camera review of 12
documents previously withheld from production by plaintiff Chubb,
based on claims of attorney-client privilege and/or work product
doctrine, and now requested by defendant Grange for purposes of
responding to Chubb’s renewed motion for summary judgment, Doc. No.
135. The Court outlined the facts and law relevant to this inquiry
when addressing Grange’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 56(d) to Conduct
Additional Discovery, Doc. No. 137.

See Opinion and Order, Doc. No.

141. Applying the standards previously set forth, the Court determines
the following:
1.

Bates Nos. F00073-F00074: email dated 6/29/2007 from Mary
Alpaugh (Chubb) to Stanley J. Lehman (counsel), ccs: to
Chubb employees; email dated 6/29/2007 from Barry Crombar
(Chubb) to Mary Alpaugh; email dated 6/29/2007 from Janna
Condor (Chubb) to Barry Crombar, cc: to Allison Stal, Lisa
Wood Teleha (Chubb); email dated 6/29/2007 from Barry
Crombar to Janna Condor, Lisa Wood Teleha, Allison Stal.
This email chain relates to the transfer of the Grange Mutual

claim file to Michele Underwood.

Only the first email in this email

chain is a communication between Chubb and its attorney; thus, the
majority of this document is not protected by the attorney-client
privilege, nor is it work product, so it is discoverable. The first

email, even though an attorney-client communication, is discoverable
under Boone’s standard because it relates to the issue of coverage and
the handling of the claim, which “may cast light” on whether Chubb
acted in bad faith.1
Chubb is ORDERED to produce Bates Nos. F00073-F00074 with the
above email chain unredacted. Chubb may redact the other partial
communications on these pages that are not under review, i.e. the top
portion of F00073 and the bottom half of F00074.
2.

Bates No. F00071: email dated 6/29/2007 from Mary Alpaugh
(Chubb) to Stanley J. Lehman (counsel), ccs: to Chubb
employees.
This document is part of the email chain discussed in #1 above.

The same analysis applies here; it is discoverable.
Chubb is ORDERED to produce Bates No. F00071 with the above email
unredacted. Chubb may redact the other partial communications on these
pages that are not under review, i.e. the top and bottom portions of
F00071.
3.

Bates Nos. F00067-F00068: email dated 7/2/2007 from Michele
Underwood (Chubb) to Stanley J. Lehman (counsel); email
dated 6/30/2007 from Stanley J. Lehman to Michele Underwood;
email dated 6/29/2007 from Mary Alpaugh to Stanley J. Lehman
(counsel), ccs: to Chubb employees.
This email chain also relates to the transfer of the Grange

Mutual claim file to Michele Underwood. All email communications
involve counsel, but the entire email chain is discoverable under
Boone’s standard because it relates to the issue of coverage and the
handling of the claim, which “may cast light” on whether Chubb acted

1

Since this is a question of discovery, the Court is not passing
judgment as to whether the documents discussed herein ultimately support or
undermine the parties’ claims or defenses. Rather, if a document is relevant
to the issue of coverage, claim processing, or other bases set forth in
Grange’s bad faith claim (see Answer and Counterclaim, Doc. No. 4, pp. 26-27),
then pursuant to the Boone standard, it is discoverable.

2

in bad faith.

It is not work product.

Chubb is ORDERED to produce Bates Nos. F00067-F00068 with the
above email chain unredacted. Chubb may redact the other partial
communication on these pages that is not under review, i.e. the top
portion of F00067.
4.

Bates No. F00055: note dated 7/13/2007 by Michele Underwood
(Chubb).
This communication appears to be a note to file that summarizes

telephone calls made in the handling of the claim, including a
referenced attempt to contact coverage counsel.

It is discoverable

under Boone.
Chubb is ORDERED to produce Bates No. F00055 with the above note
unredacted. Chubb may redact the other partial communications on this
page that are not under review, i.e. the top and bottom portions of
F00055.
5.

Bates No. F00045: email dated 8/12/2007 from Michele
Underwood (Chubb) to John Kristiansen (Chubb), cc: to
William Adams (Chubb).
This email relates to a draft complaint for declaratory relief.

This is clearly prepared in anticipation of litigation and therefore
protected as work product.
6.

Bates No. F00045: note dated 8/14/2007 by Ellen
Solchenberger (Chubb).
This communication appears to be a note to file that addresses

the delivery of underwriting materials to Michele Underwood and
Stanley Lehman. This email relates to claims handling, so it is
discoverable under Boone.
Chubb is ORDERED to produce Bates No. F00045 with the above note
unredacted. Chubb may redact the communication discussed in #5, supra,
as protected work product.

3

7.

Bates Nos. F00041-F00044: email dated 8/28/2007 from Michele
Underwood (Chubb) to Sarah Hambrick (Chubb), cc: to Lauren
Watstein (Chubb); email dated 8/28/2007 from Sarah Hambrick
to Michele Underwood, cc: to Lauren Watstein; email dated
8/27/2007 from Michele Underwood to Eric Younger (Chubb),
cc: to Chubb employees; email dated 8/27/2007 from Eric
Younger to Michele Underwood, cc: to Chubb employees; email
dated 8/27/2007 from Michele Underwood to Dan Broussard
(Chubb), cc: to Chubb employees; email dated 8/27/2007 from
Dan Broussard to Eric Younger, Michele Underwood, Lauren
Watstein, cc: to Richard Kier (Chubb); email dated 8/27/2007
from Eric Younger to Dan Broussard, cc: to Lauren Watstein.
This email chain relates to Chubb’s internal auditing of legal

service invoices related to the Grange matter and reflects
communications from counsel. This document “may cast light” on whether
Chubb acted in bad faith in its review, processing and payment of
litigation costs, one of Grange’s bases for its bad faith claim. This
relates to coverage, so it is discoverable under Boone.
Chubb is ORDERED to produce Bates Nos. F00041-F00044 with the
above email chain unredacted. Chubb may redact the other partial
communication on these pages that is not under review, i.e. the top
portion of F00041.
8.

Bates No. F00032-F00033: email dated 9/13/2007 from Michele
Underwood (Chubb) to Stanley J. Lehman (counsel), William
Adams (Chubb), cc: to Erin Milliken (counsel).
This email is an attorney-client communication, summarizing

interactions with Grange as to invoice reimbursements and settlement
discussions in the underlying litigation. As this relates to the
handling of the Grange claim, and it is not work product, it is
discoverable under Boone.
Chubb is ORDERED to produce Bates Nos. F00032-F00033 with the
above email chain unredacted. Chubb may redact the other partial
communications on these pages that are not under review, i.e. the top
portion of F00032 and the bottom half of F00033.
9.

Bates No. F00031-F00032: email dated 9/24/2007 from Stanley
J. Lehman (counsel)to Michele Underwood (Chubb); email dated
4

9/24/2007 from Michele Underwood to Stanley J. Lehman; email
dated 9/24/2007 from Stanley Lehman to Michele Underwood;
email from “jlawson” (Chubb) to “Attorney-invoices” and
“lcmg” of Chubb, “laz” and “pas” of Sherrard German (law
firm).
This email chain includes correspondence between Chubb and its
counsel. However, the communications do not pertain to the substance
of the legal representation, but only generally addresses the firm’s
billing for services rendered.

These communications are not protected

by the attorney-client privilege. With that said, this email chain,
unlike the one addressed in #8 above, does not appear to involve any
coverage issues. It is therefore not relevant to whether Chubb acted
in bad faith and need not be produced.
10.

Bates No. F00025-F00026: email dated 10/17/2007 from Michele
Underwood (Chubb) to Stanley J. Lehman (counsel), William Adams
(Chubb); email dated 10/16/2007 from Michele Underwood to Stanley
J. Lehman, William Adams.
This series of emails are clearly protected by the attorney-

client privilege. But the emails also clearly address coverage issues
and “may cast light” on whether Chubb acted in bad faith. They are
discoverable under Boone.
Chubb is ORDERED to produce Bates Nos. F00025-F00026 with the
above emails unredacted. Chubb may redact the other partial
communications on these pages that are not under review, i.e. the top
portion of F00025 and the bottom half of F00026.
11.

Bates No. F00023: note dated 11/6/2007 by Dan Broussard (Chubb).
This communication appears to be a note to file that addresses

the payment of a Sherrard German invoice. It does not appear to
involve any coverage issues. Therefore it is not relevant to whether
Chubb acted in bad faith and need not be produced.
12.

Bates No. F00021: note dated 12/5/2007 by Dan Broussard (Chubb).
This document appears to address the payment of an invoice for

5

legal fees. As explained in #11, supra, they need not be produced.
WHEREUPON, plaintiff is ORDERED to produce documents consistent
with the foregoing to defendant by May 18, 2012.

Defendant will then

have until June 15, 2012, to file its opposition to plaintiff’s
renewed motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s reply brief, if any,
shall be filed in accordance with S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2.

May 11, 2012

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

6