Other Similar Coverage Claims Held Discoverable Because of Potential Relevance to Policy Interpretation
In Polygon Northwest, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Co., 2009 WL 1437565 (W.D.Wash. May 22, 2009) (.pdf), Judge Robert Lasnik of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part an insured's discovery motion to compel an insurer to produce certain information and documents about other similar claims. The underlying coverage dispute in the case centers around whether a policy requires the stacking of self-insured retentions (SIR) on a single claim when the underlying construction project spans multiple policy years.
The Court rejected the insured's argument that other claims are discoverable because "the interpretations and intentions of other insureds are relevant to the [alleged ambiguity of the SIR provision." The Court noted that its "determination [of the policy's meaning] is based not on a survey of insured developers but on the policy language itself." However, the Court agreed with the insured that "the manner in which [the insurer] has handled the claims of other insureds with identical policy language is potentially relevant" because any evidence that the insurer" has acted in an inconsistent manner in resolving claims where similar policies were involved 'could undermine defendant['s] position that the language in question is clear and unambiguous'.” (Citing Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 106 (D.N.J.1990)).
Taking into consideration the burden to the insurer, Judge Lasnik ordered the insurer to provide information and non-privileged documents for claims for the preceding five years but authorized the insurer to redact the names of insureds and claimants.
