Evans v. Dudley

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “the actual amounts of the Insurers’ loss reserves . . . could, at the least, lead to admissible evidence relating to . . . their good or bad faith in handling and investigating [the] claims”
• applying FRCP 26(a)(1)(D) (2007), the predecessor to FRCP 26(a)(l)(A)(iv), and stating that the language “is absolute . . . and does not require any showing of relevance”
• finding no error in review of magistrate judge’s holding allowing discovery of communications between insurer and reinsurer where bad faith was an issue in dispute between insurer and insured
• affirming a Magistrate Judge’s ruling that “claims handling materials[]” are “relevant to whether claims were properly handled, ... [and] demonstrate how the Insurers’ positions in this litigation are inconsistent with previous coverage decisions[]”
• discussing Savoy v. Richard A. Carrier Trucking, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 10 (D. Mass. 1997); North River Ins. Co. v. Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co., 872 F. Supp. 1411 (E.D. Pa. 1995); citing Bernstein v. Travelers Ins. Co., 447 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2006

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).