A Continuing Trend of Claims Representative Depositions Being Allowed in Luzerne County

Luzerne County Courthouse

In each of the following three (3) Orders (without Opinion) out of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, the court ruled that the claims representatives handling the case for the Defendant’s liability carrier was required to attend a deposition requested by Plaintiff’s counsel. 

However, the court did note that the Plaintiff would be precluded from questioning the claims representative as to the claims representative’s mental impressions, conclusions, or opinions respecting the value or merit of any claim, any defense thereto, or respecting strategy or tactics with respect to any claim or defense:


The court Order in Ehrmanntraut v. People’s Security Bank and Trust Co., No. 4995-CV-2020 (C.P. Luz Co. Nov. 15, 2021 Hughes, J.), may be viewed at this LINK.


The court Order in Harenza v. House, No. 2019-CV-10883 (C.P. Luz Co. Dec. 2, 2021 Pierantoni, J.), may be viewed at this LINK.


The court Order in Stochla v. Fenner, No. 2019-CV-11607 (C.P. Luz. Co. May 26, 2022 Polachek-Gartley, J.), may be viewed at this LINK.

Deposition of Corporate Designee of Insurance Company Allowed; But Scope of Deposition Limited by Court

In the case of Evanina v. The First Liberty Ins. Corp., No. 3:20-CV-00751 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2020 Saporito, M.J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion for a Protective Order field by the Defendant, The First Liberty Insurance Corporation, relative to the Plaintiff’s desire to complete a deposition of a corporate designee of the insurance company on issues related to the regular use exclusion. 

After reviewing the rules of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which also covers the standards for a Motion for a Protective Order, Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., narrowed the scope of the requested corporate designee deposition to only cover those issues set forth in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

The court also noted that the deposition of the corporate designee was allowed in a breach of contract claim that did not include a statutory bad faith claim given that there is also a duty of good faith and fair dealing imposed under an insurance contract which could be a part of a breach of contract action.


Given that the regular use exclusion was being relied upon by the carrier as a potential defense, the court ordered that this area of inquiry under the corporate designee deposition would be allowed.

However, other requested areas to be reviewed, as noted in the deposition notice, such as questions pertaining to the household exclusion, the family car exclusion, and the unlisted driver exclusion were precluded as irrelevant to the issues presented in this particular case.

In its decision, the court also rejected the carrier’s contention that the requested deposition was disproportionate to the needs of discovery in the case. After reviewing the factors pertinent to this inquiry, the court agreed with the Plaintiff’s arguments on this part of the issue.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Order and Decision by the United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., may click this LINK.

Limited Deposition of Claims Rep Allowed in Luzerne County Post-Koken Case

In her recent Order in the case of Simonetti v. Lalko and Depositors Ins. Co., No. 2018-CV-02421 (C.P. Luz. Co. Aug. 27, 2018 Gelb, J.), the court denied the carrier’s Motion for a Protective and to Stay a Deposition of its Adjuster but confirmed that the Plaintiff may not inquire into areas of the adjuster’s mental impressions or conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of the claim or with respect to defenses of the claim or strategy or tactics in the defense of the claim by the carrier.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

 

 

Minnesota Claims Rep Ordered by Federal Court To Come to Pennsylvania for Deposition in Post-Koken Auto Case

In his recent decision in the case of Centini v. MetLife Auto & Home, No. 3:17-cv-02144 (M.D. Pa. April 3, 2018 Munley, J.), Judge James M. Munley of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the deposition of the carrier’s claims professional.  

The court additionally ordered that the claims representative’s deposition would be conducted in Pennsylvania and not in Minnesota where the claims representative was apparently located.  

The court additionally noted that the claims representative would be subjected to a complete deposition concerning the subject uninsured motorist claim at issue. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Order may click this LINK.

Deposition of Claims Rep Allowed In Lackawanna County Post-Koken Case

In the case of Novoczynski v. Swingle et al., No. 2016-CV-6538 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 20, 2017 Gibbons, J.), the court granted a Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a claims representative's deposition and denied a carrier Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order in a Post-Koken auto accident case.

While the court allowed the deposition, the court also ordered that the Plaintiff was not permitted to inquire into the claims representative's mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of the claims or defenses, or with regards to strategy or tactics.  In this regard, the court cited to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.