Tag Archives: Attorney-Client Privilege

Attorney Work Product and Hiding the Coverage Opinion – A Refresher on Attorney-Client Privilege

Recently, while going through the insurance company claim file on two cases, I saw references to a coverage opinion letter from a lawyer (or referencing emails shared between the adjuster and an attorney about coverage). These communications occurred in the claims handling process before the claim was denied and before the policyholder hired me as … Continue Reading

Insurer’s Claim for Privilege of Attorney’s Pre-Denial Communications Struck Down by New York Court of Appeals

In March I blogged about a Washington case that held an insurer’s communications with their attorney used to determine a denial of a policyholder’s claim was not privileged. In National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg v. TransCanada Energy USA, Inc.,1 a New York appellate court continues the trend. Although every state’s insurance laws differ, … Continue Reading

Deposing Carrier Attorneys and Confirming the Completeness of Carrier Discovery Responses: Dynamite Discovery Decisions, Part 10

It is not breaking news that attorneys retained by insurance companies to adjust claims are susceptible to discovery, including depositions. Indeed, I have blogged about that in the past. This post discusses a recent decision out of the United States District Court of Arizona broadening the discovery susceptibility of carrier attorneys.1… Continue Reading

Insurer Waives Privileges

Generally, any communication between an attorney and client is privileged. I often tell clients that when they want to talk about their claim by someone, they should talk to their attorney only so as not to break any privilege issues. Although I know sometimes discussing the claim outside the attorney-client relationship is a must, those … Continue Reading

Insurer’s Attorney Client Communications Not Discoverable in First Party Bad Faith Actions

Last week, in Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, No. 06-2508, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 903988 (Fla. March 17, 2011), the Florida Supreme Court resolved the following issue: DOES THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING IN ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO. V. RUIZ, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla.2005), RELATING TO DISCOVERY OF WORK PRODUCT IN FIRST-PARTY BAD … Continue Reading