Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdiscoverytrialmotionrelevancedeclaratory judgment
lawsuitdiscoverytrialmotiondeclaratory judgment

Related Cases

In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Litigation, 52 F.3d 1124, 63 USLW 2644, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,828, 41 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 904, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,210
View Case »
Fickett v. Superior Court of Pima County, 27 Ariz.App. 793, 558 P.2d 988
View Case »
Stare v. Tate, 21 Cal.App.3d 432, 98 Cal.Rptr. 264
View Case »
In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505, 59 USLW 2242, 17 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1215
View Case »
United States v. Gorski, 880 F.3d 27
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1991 WL 78200, 20 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1479

Facts

The policyholders filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of coverage under various insurance policies issued by the insurers, demanding defense and indemnification in lawsuits related to AIDS claims. Previous motions to compel discovery had been filed due to the insurers' failure to respond adequately to discovery requests. The policyholders sought to explore the drafting history of the policies and information about other insureds who processed blood derivatives, arguing that this information was relevant to their claims.

The policyholders filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of coverage under various insurance policies issued by the insurers, demanding defense and indemnification in lawsuits related to AIDS claims.

Issue

Whether the policyholders are entitled to compel the insurers to provide discovery regarding the drafting history of the insurance policies and information about other insureds.

Whether the policyholders are entitled to compel the insurers to provide discovery regarding the drafting history of the insurance policies and information about other insureds.

Rule

The court held that the drafting history of insurance policies is relevant to determine the intent of the parties and that discovery should be allowed if it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, even if the information may not be admissible at trial.

The court held that the drafting history of insurance policies is relevant to determine the intent of the parties and that discovery should be allowed if it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, even if the information may not be admissible at trial.

Analysis

The court found that the policyholders must be allowed to explore the drafting history of the insurance policies to determine if a claim for ambiguity is viable. The court noted that the insurers' argument regarding the irrelevance of the drafting history was insufficient, as the drafting history could provide insight into the insurers' intent and the interpretation of the policy language. The court also recognized that the information about other insureds could be relevant to the policyholders' claims.

The court found that the policyholders must be allowed to explore the drafting history of the insurance policies to determine if a claim for ambiguity is viable.

Conclusion

The court granted the policyholders' motion to compel, ordering the insurers to respond to the discovery requests regarding the drafting history and information about other insureds. The insurers were required to produce relevant documents and information by specified deadlines.

The court granted the policyholders' motion to compel, ordering the insurers to respond to the discovery requests regarding the drafting history and information about other insureds.

Who won?

The policyholders prevailed in this case as the court granted their motion to compel, allowing them access to the requested discovery which was deemed relevant to their claims.

The policyholders prevailed in this case as the court granted their motion to compel, allowing them access to the requested discovery which was deemed relevant to their claims.

You must be