BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack
BarbriPdBannerMessage

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Insurance

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Wednesday, January 15, 2020

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

$297.00

This course is $0 with these passes:

CLE
ALL

This CLE course will provide insurance counsel with a thorough examination of the scope of the work product doctrine and how it arises in the insurance coverage and bad faith litigation context. The panel will review case law guidance and best practices for resolving these discovery disputes.

Faculty

Deborah A. Elsasser
Partner
Lynch Daskal Emery, LLP

Ms. Elsasser has more than 30 years of commercial and mass tort litigation experience that has included representation of airlines, product manufacturers, multi-national corporations and insurers. She has extensive experience in all phases of civil litigation in state and federal courts, and in domestic and international commercial arbitration proceedings. She regularly advises clients on insurance coverage issues and represents clients in declaratory judgment and bad faith litigation.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Robert Friedman
Principal
Friedman, LLP

Mr. Friedman provides corporate insurance counseling to companies in Florida, the Caribbean, New York, and other U.S. and foreign jurisdictions. He also advised the State of Florida on insurance policy issues. He writes extensively about insurance coverage for many publications, including National Underwriter, Business Insurance, Risk & Insurance, South Florida Business Journal, and Harvard Law Record.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

The most commonly contested issue in attorney work product protection is whether the document was created in anticipation of litigation. This is a particularly tricky issue for insurers and insureds when policyholders request internal insurance company documents in coverage and bad faith claims.

Disputed document requests include claims and underwriting files, claims and underwriting manuals, interpretative documents, including drafting history, other insureds' claim files, reserve and reinsurance information, and "bad faith" discovery.

Most of these discovery disputes are resolved either by agreement or in unpublished decisions or unrecorded discovery dispute hearings. However, there are published cases on the work product doctrine, and our panel will analyze these cases and outline guidance on the resolution of these disputes and takeaway lessons.

Listen as our authoritative panel of insurance practitioners discusses the attorney work product doctrine in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation, relevant case law, and best practices for policyholders and insurers to resolve discovery disputes.

Outline

  1. Framework and overview of attorney work product doctrine
    1. Prepared in anticipation of litigation or the ordinary course of business?
  2. Application of work product doctrine in the context of insurance coverage and bad faith litigation
    1. Claims and underwriting files
    2. Claims and underwriting manuals
    3. Interpretative documents, including drafting history
    4. Other insureds' claim files
    5. Reserve and reinsurance information
    6. "Bad faith" discovery
  3. Case law guidance
  4. Best practices for policyholders and insurers to resolve attorney work product discovery disputes

Benefits

The panel will review these and other essential questions:

  • What are the best arguments for or against disclosure of internal insurance company documents related to the claims process?
  • How does the work product doctrine apply concerning written communications between an insured and its broker?
  • What guidance does case law provide for resolving discovery disputes over work product?