Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co.

Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co.

Opinion

 [*122]  ORDER

RUSSELL A. ELIASON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE.

This case involves plaintiff's attempt to collect on three separate group hospital indemnity insurance policies issued by defendant. ¹ Plaintiff underwent a precautionary, elective appendectomy, after consultation with his doctor, because of his lengthy and extensive overseas travels. The operation was successful. Defendant refused to pay on the grounds that plaintiff's elective surgery is not covered by the contract but only hospitalization for a sickness or injury. Plaintiff seeks recovery not only on the contract but for additional sums for defendant's alleged bad faith refusal to pay the policy and for punitive damages. In order to obtain information with respect to the claim of bad faith refusal to pay, plaintiff submitted, among others, interrogatory nos. 10, 24 and 30 for which he now seeks to compel defendant to provide a further response.

 [**2]  Interrogatory no. 10 requests defendant to identify all civil or criminal suits arising out of its denial or termination of benefits under health insurance policies and to provide identifying information as to docket number, court and location, parties and their status, nature of the litigation, and ultimate disposition of the suit.

Defendant objects on the grounds that the information is not relevant and, in any event, would impose an unduly burdensome and time consuming search of original records.

Interrogatory nos. 24 and 30 both seek the same information. Plaintiff wants defendant to identify all claims made on similar indemnity policies relating to appendectomies and all claims where benefits have  [*123]  been denied because it was determined that the medical procedure was not necessitated by sickness or injury.

Defendant objects to these interrogatories on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and also because it would require approximately 100 man-hours and the expenditure of $ 6,000.00 or more to create a computer software program which would identify such claims. Also, thereafter, each claims file would have to be manually retrieved and reviewed.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.