Bernstein v. Travelers Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that reserves were discoverable to shed light on what insurer actually thought regarding merits of claims
• noting that the state’s case law “clearly demonstrates that [their] courts will be open to arguments in bad faith cases about the relevance of evidence about reserves”
• finding reserve information relevant and requiring the party turn over the same subject to a protective order
• stating courts in California “will be open to arguments in bad faith cases about the relevance of evidence about reserves—and that in some circumstances those courts will conclude that such evidence is discoverable.”
• finding reserve information relevant when assessing insurer’s motivations 24 regarding handling of claim
• addressing claims that insurer acted “in bad faith”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).