Petitioner insurer sought a writ of mandate to direct respondent court to bar plaintiff insured from discovering the names, addresses, and records of certain petitioner claimants or, in the alternative, to place certain restrictions on plaintiff’s use of the material discovered. Plaintiff brought an action for violation of Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03(h), breach of contract, and breach of the duty of fair dealing and good faith.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. employs Business Attorneys Orange County
Overview
The trial court barred plaintiff insured’s counsel from contacting other claimants until those claimants responded to a court-approved letter. Petitioner insurer sought a writ of mandate explicitly preventing plaintiff’s counsel from seeking to represent other claimants against petitioner and from all discovery of the names and records of such claimants on the ground that evidence of a pattern of unfair practices was irrelevant as a matter of law in private actions against insurers under Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03(h). The court found that the discovery of the names and records of the claimants with whom petitioner’s claims adjuster attempted settlements was relevant to the subject matter of the action and might lead to admissible evidence. The court found that there was no indication that plaintiff’s counsel planned to engage in, or had engaged in solicitation in violation of the professional conduct standards. The court denied the writ and concluded that counsel’s “communication” was not for the purpose of seeking professional employment for pecuniary gain but for the purpose of developing relevant evidence in the existing lawsuit.
Outcome
The court denied petitioner insurer’s request for a writ of mandate. The court concluded that the information sought by plaintiff insured was relevant to the subject matter of the action and might lead to admissible evidence.