News
Attorney-Client Privilege Potentially Under Siege (NY)
November 15, 2018
Share to:
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, recently issued a decision that will have severe ramifications on insurance carriers. In <em><a href="http://blog.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Rickard-v.-New-York-Cent.-Mut.-Fire-Ins.-Co..pdf">Rickard v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</a>,</em> a supplementary UIM claim, the injured party served a notice to produce for New York Central Mutual’s entire claim file, including the portions of the file that were generated after the action was filed. New York Central Mutual, claiming that the material from after the action was filed is protected, moved for a protective order, or in the alternative, for an in-camera review of the materials. The trial court denied New York Central Mutual’s motion and granted Rickard’s cross-motion to compel the entire claim file. As a result of the trial court’s decision, New York Central Mutual appealed to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
The Fourth Department discussed how New York Central Mutual’s objection in response to Plaintiff’s notice to produce was overly broad, in that NYMC should have identified which specific document requests were “palpably improper” instead of asserting that all materials in the claim file generated after the commencement of this action were protected. In the end, the court held that New York Central Mutual failed to meet its burden to secure the protection they requested because of the breadth of the objection. The court said, deciding what parts of a claim file are protected is a fact-specific determination. They added that this will most likely result in an in-camera review.
This case goes against the prior holding of <em>Lalka v. ACA Ins. Co., </em>a 2015 Fourth Department case, where the court held that all documents in the claim file created after an action has commenced are protected from disclosure.
The concern going forward is that the courts will continue to chip away at the attorney-client privilege between insurance carriers and their attorneys. For now, when objecting to demands by citing attorney-client privilege, insurers and their attorneys would be well advised to note specific bases for their objections, rather than issue blunderbuss objections to all such demands. Thanks to Marc Schauer for his contribution to this post. Please email <a href="mailto:BGibbons@wcmlaw.com">Brian Gibbons</a> with any questions.