Bryce Corporation v. XL Insurance America, Inc.

Background

Bryce Corporation sought an order concerning its questioning of XL Insurance America, Inc. employees about XL’s reserves for Bryce’s claims. XL opposed the request, arguing that it had produced all non-privileged reserve information, that certain information was protected by privilege or the attorney-work-product doctrine, and that XL’s internal large-loss threshold was irrelevant and confidential.

Court’s Analysis

The court accepted XL’s representation that it had produced all non-privileged reserve information and had otherwise provided information about its large-loss threshold. The court therefore denied Bryce’s first two requests as moot.

The court rejected XL’s narrow view of relevance for the remaining request. It explained that discovery relevance is broad and includes information that bears on an issue in the case or could reasonably lead to such information. The court relied on its earlier ruling that XL’s reserve information was relevant to XL’s beliefs about coverage and liability, as well as its good or bad faith in handling and investigating Bryce’s claims. The court found that XL’s large-loss threshold was relevant to understanding XL’s internal valuation of Bryce’s claims, which related to Bryce’s allegations that XL delayed fully and fairly adjusting them. The court reached a similar conclusion regarding other non-privileged topics concerning reserve information and claim adjustment.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted in part Bryce’s request. The court directed XL not to instruct deponents to avoid answering questions about relevant reserve information. XL could still assert factually supported objections based on attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. The court denied XL’s cross-motion for the costs of opposing Bryce’s request. The supplied opinion text ends mid-sentence after referring to other objections, so it does not provide the remainder of that discussion.