Key Takeaway
New York court clarifies when first-party insurance claim files are discoverable, distinguishing between litigation prep and routine business investigations.
Discovery disputes frequently arise in first-party insurance cases, particularly regarding what documents insurers must produce during litigation. The key question often centers on whether materials in an insurer’s claim file were prepared for litigation purposes or as part of routine business operations. This distinction carries significant legal weight, as it determines whether the attorney work product doctrine shields these documents from disclosure.
The First Department’s decision in Dabo v One Hudson Yards Owner provides important guidance on this issue, establishing clear parameters for when first-party insurance files become discoverable. Understanding these boundaries is crucial for both insureds seeking documentation and insurers protecting privileged materials. This ruling builds upon established precedent while clarifying the scope of protection available to insurance companies during discovery proceedings.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Dabo v One Hudson Yards Owner, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07751 (1st Dept. 2019)
“Documents in an insurer’s claim file, including an accident investigation report, that were prepared for litigation against its insured are immune from disclosure (see CPLR 3101; Recant v Harwood, 222 AD2d 372, 373-374 ). Although documents in a first-party insurance action prepared in an insurer’s ordinary course of business in investigating whether to accept or reject coverage are discoverable (see CPLR 3101; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 191 ), there is no indication that such documents are being protected here.”
Key Takeaway
The court draws a critical distinction between litigation-prepared materials (which are protected) and routine business investigation documents (which are discoverable). Insurance companies cannot claim blanket protection over their entire claim file—only materials specifically prepared in anticipation of litigation qualify for work product immunity. This ruling reinforces that ordinary coverage investigations remain subject to discovery in first-party insurance disputes.
Related Articles
- Discovery Violations and Court Sanctions: When New York Courts Strike Back
- Understanding Discovery Rules and Summary Judgment Timing in NY Personal Injury Cases
- Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances
- Recent procedural developments in NY no-fault insurance law
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
