"There are two divergent bodies of case law governing the application of the work product doctrine to documents prepared by insurers in investigating claims of fire loss thought to be caused by arson. One line of cases holds that litigation becomes reasonably anticipated—and, thus, documents are covered by the work product doctrine—when the insurer has an indication that the loss was caused by the insured committing arson. [Citations omitted.] The other line of case law creates a presumption that documents prepared prior to an insurer issuing a formal notice of intent to deny coverage are not covered by the work product doctrine, while documents prepared after such notice are covered by the work product doctrine. [Citations omitted.] Though the facts of each case vary, both lines of case law tend to establish that the work product doctrine kicks in when 'the probability of litigating the claim is substantial and imminent.'” So said a Federal Judge in the Southern District of West Virginia in the case of Javins v. Westfield Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00698, 2021 WL 2188751, at *3 (S.D. W. Va. May 28, 2021).
It has not been said better very often, so I quote this passage here in its entirety. When it's good, leave it alone to be good, whatever "it" may be.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2021 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments