The insurer’s movement to compel paperwork and communications from one other insurer was denied. Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Liberty Mut. Hearth Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178726 (D. N.J. Sept. 12, 2025).
Jacobs Engineering agency suffered a verdict in state court docket of $2,579,000.00. Insurance coverage Firm of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSP) insured Jacobs and supplied protection and a protection for the underlying case. ICSP wrote to Liberty Mutual demanding that Liberty Mutual present protection and pay ICSP its coverage restrict of $1,000,000. ICSP contended that Jacobs was an extra insured below Liberty Mutual’s coverage. This letter was the primary time ICSP made a requirement to Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual responded that protection was denied and rejected ICSP’s demand for indemnificaiton and contribution. Liberty Mutual contended Jacobs was not an extra insured below its coverage, and even when it was, ICSP’s demand was after the underlying motion had been tried and judgment entered.
ICSP sued Liberty Mutual. Prior abstract judgment motions have been filed and the court docket concluded that acobs was an extra insured below the Liberty Mutual coverage. The court docket additional determined that there have been points of fabric details for the jury to resolve, together with whether or not ICSP waived, or was estopped from, restoration as a result of it didn’t tender a protection of the underlying motion till after the jury verdict was rendered.
On the Rule 30 (b) (6) deposition of Liberty Mutual, the consultant testified that recommendation of counsel was relied upon to find out Jacobs was not an extra insured. The consultant additional testified that Liberty Mutual didn’t examine whether or not Jacobs had different insurance coverage as a result of Jacobs was not an insured of Liberty Mutual.
ICSP moved to compel all paperwork and communications relied upon in figuring out whether or not to research whether or not Jacobs had skilled legal responsibility protection and whether or not to tender to any such service on behalf of Jacobs for the underlying motion.
The court docket famous that Liberty Mutual’s analysis focuses on whether or not it was obligated to contribute to the judgment within the quantity of coverage limits. This hinged upon whether or not Jacobs was an extra insured below the coverage. The communicaitons and work product surrounding exterior counsel’s protection willpower weren’t a part of Liberty Mutual’s routine enterprise actions and typical declare investigations. Liberty Mutual anticipated litigation on the time it started investigating protection of Jacobs after receiving ICSP’s demand letter. There was little question that Liberty Mutual’s communications with exterior counsel have been meant to be confidential and made when litigation was fairly anticipated. Liberty Mutual happy the take a look at for work product privilege.
Turning as to if Liberty Mutual waived the attornely-client and work product privileges by inserting the recommendation of out of doors counsel “at problem,” the court docket discovered that Liberty Mutual didn’t. ICSP argued that exterior counsel’s recommendation was positioned “in problem” when Liberty Mutual relied on it to clarify why it didn’t search or examine the existence of different relevant protection for Jacobs. However there was no indication that exterior counsel did so. Somewhat, after being informed that Jacobs was not lined by the coverage, the declare adjuster appeared to have independently concluded that there was no must then discover whether or not Jacobs had different insurance coverage. There was no proof that exterior counsel suggested Liberty Mutual whether or not to research if Jacobs had different insurance coverage. At no level had Liberty Mutual tried to make use of privileged info because the proverbial “sword and defend.” The report demonstrated that Liberty Mutual didn’t intend to show the late-notice protection by means of the usage of privileged supplies.
Subsequently, ICSP had not established an “at problem” waiver, and its request to compel on this foundation was denied.
