Robertson et al v. Cincinnati Life Insurance Company et al
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 68 MOTION for Order Compelling Discovery; directing Defendant to produce within fourteen days the documents described herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 11/6/2017. (cc: counsel of record) (jsa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Individually and as the personal
Representative of Jon Robertson,
Case No.: 3:16-cv-04242
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Discovery. (ECF No. 68). The
issues in dispute have been fully briefed, and oral argument is unnecessary. For the
reasons that follow, the undersigned GRANTS the motion to compel. Defendant is
ORDERED to produce within fourteen days any portions of manuals, policy
statements, or other such documents in its possession, regardless of whether or not they
were developed by an outside company (such as a reinsurer), regarding the
treatment/consideration of “chest pain” in underwriting a life insurance policy.
Defendant offers four arguments for withholding these documents. First,
Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not properly request documents created by
reinsurers. The undersigned disagrees. The request for production of documents
submitted by Plaintiff broadly asked for any such underwriting materials. While Plaintiff
did not specify that she wanted documents developed by reinsurers, the request naturally
includes all responsive documents in Defendant’s possession, regardless of their
Second, Defendant argues that documents created by reinsurers are irrelevant in
this case, because the insurance policy issued on the life of Plaintiff’s decedent was not
reinsured. However, as Plaintiff points out, the policies and procedures of other insurance
companies may lead to the admissibility of evidence regarding industry standards and,
thus, the appropriateness of Defendant’s actions in this case. Relevancy is a broad concept
in federal court discovery. The ultimate admissibility of reinsurer materials is an issue
separate from their discoverability.
Next, Defendant asserts that underwriting manuals created by other companies
are proprietary; consequently, Defendant is not authorized to disclose them. Defendant
offers no evidentiary support for that statement; such as, a contract or other agreement
between Defendant and the reinsurers prohibiting disclosure of policies and manuals.
Indeed, the information before the Court suggests that the reinsurers freely disseminate
their underwriting policies to associated insurers, such as Defendant. Accordingly, this
argument is not persuasive. In any event, as Plaintiff agrees to accept the documents
subject to a protective order, Defendant’s concerns about the proprietary nature of the
policies and manuals should be alleviated.
Finally, Defendant claims that the wholesale production of policies and manuals is
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.
Defendant fails to supply factual information necessary to establish its burdensomeness
objection; however, the undersigned agrees that requiring Defendant to produce all
policies and all manuals is not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff
acknowledges the merit of Defendant’s proportionality argument in her reply and agrees
to limit her request to the policies and portions of manuals and other such documents
discussing “chest pain” in the context of underwriting a life insurance policy. As such a
limitation reasonably addresses the proportionality issue, the undersigned grants the
motion to compel as modified.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record.
ENTERED: November 6, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?