Morrison v. Chartis Property and Casualty Company

Filing 77

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary denying Motion to Compel (Re: 67 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents ) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/3/2014 ENTERED IN ERROR - DUPLICATE FILING OF DKT. 76 (crp, Dpty Clk).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
NANCY MORRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARTIS PROPERTY CASUALTY CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-CV-116-JED-PJC

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Filed
by Defendant, Chartis Property Casualty Co (“Chartis”). [Dkt. No. 67]. In August
2011, Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident caused by the negligence
of the tortfeasor, John Branum (“Branum”). Plaintiff sued Branum in Tulsa
County, Oklahoma, and that lawsuit was settled in April 2013. Branum is not a
party to this action.
In February 2013, Plaintiff filed this case against her insurer, Chartis, for
its handing of an under-insured motorist claim. In its Motion to Compel,
Chartis seeks to compel production of communications sent or received by
Plaintiff or her counsel, to/from Branum, his counsel, or any representative of
Safeco, Branum’s insurance carrier.

Defendant contends that it needs these

documents to explain why Safeco tendered the tortfeasor’s $500,000 policy
limits. Defendant says that Plaintiff intends to use evidence of Safeco’s tender of
policy limits as evidence that Defendant undervalued Plaintiff’s UIM claim.

DISCUSSION
Rule 26(b)(1) provides that parties may obtain discovery “regarding any
matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party….
Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). At the discovery phase of litigation “relevancy” is broadly
construed.
Under Oklahoma law, an insurer has an implied-in-law duty to act in
good faith and deal fairly with its insured to ensure that the policy benefits are
received, and a violation of that duty gives rise to an action in tort. Bannister v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 692 F.3d 1117, 1123 n. 8 (10th Cir. 2012); Badillo v.
Mid Century Ins. Co., 121 P.3d 1080, 1093 (Okla. 2005); Christian v. American
Home Assur. Co., 577 P.2d 899, 901–05 (Okla. 1978). The focus of a bad-faith
claim is the knowledge and belief of the insurer at the time period the claim is
being reviewed. Newport v. USAA, 11 P.3d 190, 195 (Okla. 2000)’ Buzzard v.
McDaniel, 736 Pl.2d 157, 159 (Okla. 1987). It is irrelevant how, or whether, a
third-party claim is being handled. See Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 121 P.3d
1080, 1093-95 (Okla. 2005). Chartis does not need to be able to explain Safeco’s
evaluation; it needs to be able to explain its own evaluation. The information
that Chartis seeks is irrelevant to the claims and defenses asserted in this action

2

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.
Dated this 3rd day of October, 2014.

3