US D. New Jersey, Dec. 30, 2015 – U.S. Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio has granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Bankers Standard Insurance Company in a bad faith and breach of contract case under a homeowners’ insurance policy arising out of damage from Superstorm Sandy. In Zawadsky v. Bankers Standard Insurance (link to full opinion below), the Court made several pronouncements which should be of concern to insurers, and their in house legal departments.
Draft Partial Coverage Letter: Admission of Coverage?
Although Bankers Standard issued a denial letter regarding the insured’s homeowners claim, there was evidence that a junior adjuster had previously drafted a coverage letter extending partial coverage for the loss. Judge Donio ruled that the intentional delay in turning the draft letter over was sanctionable under F.R.C.P. 37:
Most importantly, the Draft Partial Coverage Letter — despite Defendant’s assertion to the contrary — is an admission by one claims adjuster that there is coverage under the Policy. The fact that a more senior adjuster trumped that position and directed a flat denial of coverage be issued does not erase this conclusion. Additionally, the concealment of that conclusion — that admission — bespeaks of purposeful conduct that may, after the depositions are conducted, warrant additional sanctions. As noted by Plaintiffs, if it were not for the inadvertent production by Defendant on February 2, 2015 of the unredacted email, Plaintiffs would still not have the Draft Partial Coverage Letter.
(emphasis added). The Court found the conduct of Bankers Standard Insurance sanctionable in this regard.
Emails Involving In House Counsel: Lawyers or Claims Investigators?
Judge Donio ruled that Bankers Standard failed to adequately demonstrate that email strings involving in house legal department lawyers sufficiently came under protection for attorney client privilege. She wrote:
…the timing of these communications supports Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendant’s in-house counsel was part of the investigation of Plaintiffs’ claim and not providing legal advice. The burden is on Defendant to appropriately support its application of the privilege at the time of the motion. Defendant has left it up to the Court to decipher these emails and determine whether in-house counsel is providing legal advice or acting as part of the claims investigation. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
As a result, the Court also ordered production of unredacted emails including communication with in house counsel.
Severity of the Sanction
Rather than granting the sanction requested by the Plaintiff — striking all of the insurer’s substantive defenses and moving directly to a damages trial — Judge Donio issued the lesser sanction of orders compelling production of the documents under dispute, and allowing the Plaintiff to re-open discovery on the issue of the draft partial coverage letter
- Bankers Standard was clearly concerned about the presence of a draft partial coverage letter in the same claims file in which a later full denial of coverage letter existed. They elected to attempt to shield the letter from discovery. Another option which may have proved the better route would have been to simply disclose the letter as part of the story of the on-going thought process of the claim, which later gave way to a reasonable conclusion, after consultation with senior claims staff and counsel, that there was ultimately no coverage for the loss. Insurers are not prohibited from a change of mind on a coverage position if the claims investigation supports it.
- This case is a signal example of why the line of demarcation between claims staff and in-house legal counsel should never be blurred. Here, Bankers Standard’s failure to sufficiently articulate to the Court why the in house legal staff performed legal work, rather than claims investigation, sounded the death knell for attorney client privilege in the case.
- The chances of Inadvertent production of privileged material can be reduced by the cross-checking of the production by a second or third pair of eyes in counsel’s office, and can be guarded against by inadvertent disclosure and claw-back discovery agreements, entered into at the outset of the case, along with such things as confidentiality agreements, and consent agreements to protective orders.
Zawadsky v. Bankers Standard Ins. Co., (D. N.J. 2015)