MAY 2011 BAD FAITH CASES
COURT APPLIES THE “TWO-WAY STREET” RULE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO DENY A MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATIONS (Middle District)
May 4, 2011
In Verdetto v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
, the insureds had filed an action against the insurer for breaching the terms of an insurance policy, and during the proceedings they filed a Motion for Disclosure of Communication between the insurer and its counsel. In February 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Gillard v. AIG Ins. Co.
determined that the privilege “operates in a two-way fashion to protect confidential client-to-attorney or attorney-to-client communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing professional legal advice.” In light of Gillard
, the court denied the insurer’s Motion for Disclosure of Communications, and the communications between the insurer and its counsel remained privileged.
Date of Decision: April 19, 2011
Verdetto v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-1917, United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42351, (Apr. 19, 2011) (Caputo, J.)
Posted in PA - Discovery and Evidence