In this breach of contract and bad faith case relative to a policy that provided commercial premises coverage, the Plaintiff insured claimed that documents withheld or redacted in discovery did not fall within the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or did not pertain to reserve information.
The Plaintiff insured asserted that all but one of the documents at issue was either sent to or from employees of the insurer’s third party administrator or its authorized claim representative, and as neither of these entities were subsidiaries of, or owned by, the insurer, the communications were not privileged.In response, the carrier did not assert an agency relationship with either the third party administrator or the authorized claims representative. Rather, the carrier, instead argued that the communications between the third party administrator’s in-house counsel and/or the claim representative’s in-house counsel with the insurer all fell within the scope of attorney-client privilege.
|Judge Matthew W. Brann|
As such, the court found that the redactions were appropriate.
Anyone wishing to read this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum and the other writers of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law Blog at Fineman, Krekstein & Harris for bringing this case to my attention.