Legal Opinion

Bartlett v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

District Court, S.D. Indiana

Decided May 22, 2002No. IP01-0510 C-H/KPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

BAKER, United States Magistrate Judge.

When an insured brings suit against an insurance company alleging bad faith denial of a claim, the contents in the claims file are often a central issue in discovery. As is the case in this discovery dispute, the insurance company routinely asserts that the contents of its claims file are protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery of contents in the claims file. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion to compel is…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Swidler & Berlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. Erie Insurance v. Hickman Ex Rel. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Julie Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Julie Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. M.E.S., Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2011
  2. Ideal Electric Co. v. Flowserve Corp.District Court, D. Nevada · 2005
  3. Mordesovitch v. Westfield InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2003
  4. Smith v. Scottsdale InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 2014
  5. Kartman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2007

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API