The federal district court considered a variety of discovery requests by the insured in a bad faith case against State Farm. Stephens v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2015 WL 1638516 (M.D. Pa. April 13, 2015). 

   The insured plaintiff was a quadriplegic. His complaint alleged that he notified State Farm, through its agent, that he would have to leave his residence for medical treatment and intended to rent the home while he received care for his disabling condition. The complaint further alleged that the insured was told by State Farm's agent that his insurance would remain unaffected by his departure while he sought medical care. Nevertheless, when the insured reported loss due to vandalism and water damage at his home, State Farm relied upon his departure from the residence to cancel his insurance.

   In discovery, the insured requested three categories of documents from State Farm. First, he requested State Farm's claims manuals, guidelines and instructions materials relating to insurance claims like those made by this insured. Second, the plaintiff requested performance reviews and performance incentive programs for all of State Farm's employees who played a role in decisions in this case from 2009 to the present. Finally, the plaintiff demanded that State Farm compile information relating to other insurance lawsuits brought against State Farm involving theft, vandalism and water damage claims, as well as all lawsuits or complaints regarding the conduct of this particular claims adjuster. When the materials were not produced, plaintiff filed a motion to compel.

   The court first ruled that portions of the claims manuals, guidelines and instructions materials relating to insurance claims like those made by plaintiff for 2012 and 2013, the years at issue in this lawsuit, should be produced.

   Regarding the request for personnel files, there was a strong public policy against disclosure of such materials. The court found the requests were too broad. However, the conduct of the adjuster in this case was squarely at issue. Therefore, to the extent that the personnel files of the adjuster contained disciplinary findings or other material relevant to other claims of bad faith conduct, these materials would be provided to the court for an in camera inspection to determine whether they were relevant to the issues in the litigation.

   Finally, the request for other lawsuits involving theft, vandalism and water damage claims was denied. However, the request for information pertaining to the claims adjuster in this case was potentially relevant. Therefore, prior lawsuits or complaints alleging bad faith by this particular claims adjuster in the two years preceding the loss were to be provided to the court for an in camera inspection to determine whether the information was relevant.