Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. Amguard Insurance Company
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-00959
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Starr Indemnity v. AmGUARD, Judge Illston overruled AmGUARD’s objection and adopted the Special Master’s discovery order protecting privileged or irrelevant materials.
AmGUARD’s discovery requests and Starr’s claim-file, coverage-communication, and defense-billing materials.
What happened
In Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. AmGUARD Insurance Company, AmGUARD objected to the Special Master’s refusal to order production of parts of Starr’s claim file, certain communications, and complete defense-fee records from the Duncan lawsuits.
The court found that the Special Master correctly concluded that some claim-file communications were privileged and that communications about Starr’s coverage dispute were not sufficiently relevant to AmGUARD’s coverage dispute. Under California law, attorney-fee statements with task descriptions in the ongoing Duncan lawsuit were privileged, while bills from the settled Smyth lawsuit were not.
Judge Susan Illston found no legal or factual error, overruled AmGUARD’s objection, and adopted the Special Master’s order.
The detailed version
- Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. Amguard Insurance Company · No. 3:20-cv-00959
- Susan Illston
- Feb. 28, 2022
Background
AmGUARD Insurance Company objected to portions of Special Master Martin Quinn’s January 24, 2022 discovery order. The objection concerned two categories of requested materials: (1) portions of Starr Indemnity & Liability Company’s claim file relating to the Duncan and Smythe lawsuits, communications about the Starr policy between Kihagi and her personal or coverage counsel and Starr, and (2) complete copies of defense fees and costs incurred in the Duncan lawsuits.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the Special Master’s factual findings for clear error and his legal conclusions independently. It found no legal or factual error in his analysis.
The Special Master had concluded that, although some Starr claim-file material might be relevant to the Duncan case, AmGUARD had not shown a basis for obtaining communications that were clearly privileged. He also concluded that communications about Starr’s coverage dispute with its insureds had little or no relevance to AmGUARD’s separate coverage dispute, which would turn on the AmGUARD policies, the truthfulness of the insureds’ application statements, and what AmGUARD knew and when it knew it about the Smythe and Duncan lawsuits.
The court also noted that AmGUARD had apparently subpoenaed many of the documents from the Kihagi parties and their defense and coverage counsel. Starr had already produced nonprivileged portions of its claim file, including coverage-position letters and its policy. The court further noted that AmGUARD’s own filings showed it had already obtained discovery about settlement offers, despite arguing that it needed claim-file documents about settlement negotiations to show prejudice.
As to the billing records, the Special Master concluded under California law that attorney-fee statements, including task descriptions, in active or pending litigation—such as the Duncan lawsuit—were privileged, while attorney bills in settled matters—such as the Smyth lawsuit—were not.
Ruling
Judge Susan Illston overruled AmGUARD’s objection and adopted the Special Master’s order. The order therefore upheld the challenged discovery rulings concerning Starr’s claim-file materials, coverage-related communications, and defense-fee records.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.