Technology Insurance Company, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-07387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Technology Insurance v. Philadelphia Indemnity, Judge Liman denied without prejudice a motion to compel privileged insurance-claim materials.
Technology Insurance Company, Inc. and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company were affected by the ruling on access to the claim-file materials and asserted privileges.
What happened
Technology Insurance Company, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company involved Technology Insurance’s request for all information in Philadelphia Indemnity’s claim file about its decision to issue an August 23, 2019 disclaimer letter, including claim notes.
Technology Insurance argued that Philadelphia Indemnity could not claim attorney-client privilege or protection for attorney work product. The court rejected that blanket argument, explaining that federal law governs work-product protection in federal court and that the cited New York decision appeared limited to certain reports prepared before an insurer decides whether to pay or reject a claim. Technology Insurance had not shown that every requested document fit that category, and Philadelphia Indemnity said it had provided a list identifying the materials it considered privileged.
The court denied Technology Insurance’s motion without prejudice and said it could renew the request by identifying specific documents and relying on federal law for work-product protection and state law for attorney-client privilege. Judge Lewis J. Liman also directed the clerk to close the motion on the docket.
The detailed version
- Technology Insurance Company, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company · No. 1:21-cv-07387
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 3, 2022
Background
Technology Insurance moved to compel Philadelphia Indemnity to produce “all information” in its claim file, including claim notes, concerning Philadelphia Indemnity’s decision-making process related to its August 23, 2019 disclaimer letter.
Arguments and Legal Framework
Technology Insurance relied entirely on Bombard v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company for its assertion that Philadelphia Indemnity could not claim attorney-client privilege or the attorney-work-product doctrine. Attorney-client privilege protects certain confidential communications between a client and attorney. The work-product doctrine protects certain materials prepared for litigation or in anticipation of litigation.
The court explained that federal law—not state law—governs the work-product doctrine in federal court. It also stated that Bombard, on its face, appeared to concern reports helping an insurer choose between actions in the ordinary course of business, including reports prepared by insurance investigators, adjusters, or attorneys before the insurer decides whether to pay or reject a claim. Technology Insurance had not shown that every requested document fell within that category. Philadelphia Indemnity represented that it had served a privilege log identifying the materials for which it claimed privilege.
Ruling
The court denied Technology Insurance’s motion without prejudice. It stated that Technology Insurance could renew the motion by identifying the particular documents for which it believed privilege had been improperly asserted, citing federal law for the work-product doctrine and state law for attorney-client privilege. The clerk was directed to close Docket No. 16.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.