In the case of Drummond v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2023-Ohio-283, an appellate court held that (1) contact information and impressions of valuations, without a demonstration of how the valuations are reached, are not protected by the attorney-client privilege and (2) documents prepared after the lawsuit was filed but did not relate to the claim that the insurance company handled the insurance claim in bad faith were protected by the work product privilege.
In this case, the insurance company argued that (1) the internal impressions of the injuries and damages, entries made after the lawsuit was filed, and reserve information and internal claim evaluation in the claims file were protected by the attorney-client privilege and (2) several documents in the claims file were created after the lawsuit was filed were related to the insurance company’s defense, but not to how the insurance company handled the insurance claim. In response, the claimant argued that (1) the information in the claims file did not contain any communication with an attorney and (2) the documents were related to how the insurance company handled the insurance claim. The appellate court agreed with the claimant on the attorney-client privilege claim and with the insurance company on the work product privilege claim.
In support of its decision in favor of the claimant on the attorney-client privilege claim, the appellate court explained that the documents in the claim file did not contain any memoranda or other form of communication with any person identified as an attorney and nothing could be reasonably construed as a communication with an attorney.
In support of its decision in favor of the insurance company on the work product privilege claim, the appellate court explained that several documents in the claim file “contain work product materials relevant to the [insurance company’s] defense of the bad faith claim, but not otherwise probative of [the insurance company’s] alleged bad faith in handling [the insured’s] insurance claim.” 2023-Ohio-283 at ¶ 61. The appellate court further explained that “[b]ecause these post suit work product materials cast no light on [the insurance company’s] alleged bad faith in the handling of [the insured’s] insurance claim, they are not discoverable in this litigation.” Id. at ¶ 61.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.