You are here: / / SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S...
, , ,

SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING LEGAL OPINION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court) determined plaintiff was not entitled to disclosure of the pre-disclaimer opinion of outside counsel for the insurer, and was not entitled to the insurer’s manual without an in camera review of the manual for relevance. Supreme Court properly ordered disclosure of the pre-disclaimer claim notes which included statements made by the insured (father of the injured infant):

​

… [T]he court properly ordered disclosure of pre-disclaimer claim notes containing statements made by the father. It is well settled that “there must be full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the ordinary course of business that were motivated at least in part by a business concern other than preparation for litigation” … . Here, the father made his statements to defendant’s investigators before defendant made the decision to disclaim, and there is no dispute that defendant’s employees relied on those statements in making that decision.

… [T]he court abused its discretion in granting that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking disclosure of the legal opinion of outside counsel and pre-disclaimer claim notes related thereto and denying that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking a protective order with respect to those items, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Although reports prepared in the regular course of business are discoverable … , documents prepared by an attorney that are “primarily and predominantly of a legal character,” and made to furnish legal services, are absolutely privileged and not discoverable, regardless of whether there was pending litigation at the time they were prepared … .

[T]he court abused its discretion in granting that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking disclosure of defendant’s reserve information and denying that part of defendant’s cross motion with respect thereto inasmuch as that information is not “material and necessary” to the action (CPLR 3101 [a]…).

​

… [T]he court abused its discretion in granting that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking disclosure of defendant’s claim investigation manual and denying that part of defendant’s cross motion with respect thereto without first conducting an in camera review. As the moving party, plaintiff had the burden of demonstrating that “the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims” … . …[T]he court should have reviewed the manual in camera to determine whether it contained information material and relevant to the issues to be decided in the action … . Celani v Allstate Indem. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 07799, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING LEGAL OPINION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING LEGAL OPINION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (INSURANCE LAW, (SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING LEGAL OPINION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY-CLIENT, INSURANCE LAW, DISCLOSURE, (SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING LEGAL OPINION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/DISCLOSURE (INSURANCE LAW, SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING LEGAL OPINION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 3101 (a) (INSURANCE LAW, SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING LEGAL OPINION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Pedigree Question “Where Do You Reside,” Under the Circumstances, Was Designed to Elicit an Incriminating Response, the Answer, Therefore, Should Have Been Suppressed; New Trial on Possessory Counts Ordered
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED.
THE JUDGE REMOVED ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES FROM THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO WEAR A STUN BELT WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, THE RELEVANT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS UNTIL EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE TRIAL; THE LOSS OF TRIAL EXHIBITS DEMONSTRATING WHETHER THE PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES WERE EXHAUSTED IS HELD AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO SEEK A TIMELY RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT)
Suppression Ruling Reversed—Pat Down Search Justified for Officer Safety​
ONCE PETITIONER’S PATERNITY HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY GENETIC TESTING FAMILY COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO VACATE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY (AOP) PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED BY MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND (FOURTH DEPT).
Police Officer Struck by Plaintiffs’ Decedents When the Officer Was Making a U-Turn to Follow a Car Was Entitled to Summary Judgment Under the Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard
ITEMS SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE OVERBROAD SECTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT, IF ANY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING; THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH, NOTWITHSTANDING THE INCLUSION OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT WHICH DID NOT SATISFY THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI TEST (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED... PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE...