Case Title: Di Pietruntonio v. Superior Court

Citation: 327 P.2d 746, 84 Ariz. 291

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1958-07-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
84 Ariz. 291 (1958) 327 P.2d 746 Livio DI PIETRUNTONIO, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA and The Honorable Lorna Lockwood, one of the Judges thereof, Respondent. No. 6676. Supreme Court of Arizona. July 2, 1958. *292 Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, Phoenix, by John P. Frank, Phoenix, and Walter Linton, by Nathan Holt, Phoenix, for petitioner. Langerman & Begam, Phoenix, for respondent. PHELPS, Justice. This matter comes to us on an original writ of prohibition directed against respondent, The Honorable Lorna Lockwood. The facts upon which the writ is based are those in the case of Susan Bronk, plaintiff, v. Livio Di Pietruntonio, defendant. Plaintiff is seeking damages from defendant for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her as the result of an automobile accident involving defendant and his pickup truck. Pursuant to Rule 33, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., plaintiff requested the defendant, petitioner herein, to answer the following interrogatories: Thereafter timely objections were made to the foregoing interrogatories by petitioner upon the grounds that the information sought therein was "immaterial, irrelevant and outside of all lawful issues in said cause." After hearing thereon, and at the conclusion thereof, respondent ordered petitioner to answer the questions contained in the interrogatories. It is the position of petitioner that the Honorable Lorna Lockwood was without lawful authority to make such an order and that in doing so she exceeded the jurisdiction of the court over which she presided. Thereupon, petitioner instituted these proceedings for writ of prohibition. There is no question but that prohibition is a proper remedy to test the jurisdiction of the lower court in a case of this kind. Rule 33, Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes a party litigant to employ the use of interrogatories as a means of discovery, subject to the limitations upon their use by the provisions of Rule 26(b) thereof which reads as follows: The precise question presented to us as stated by petitioner in his brief is: whether in the ordinary automobile accident case the discovery process may be used to compel a defendant to reveal to a plaintiff the extent and nature of the insurance coverage of the defendant. It appears to be the universal rule that in order to comply with the purpose of the rules they should be given a liberal construction. McNelley v. Perry, D.C., E.D.Tenn. 1955, 18 F.R.D. 360. *294 This question has been before a number of federal district courts resulting in conflicting results. A federal district court in New York in Orgel v. McCurdy, D.C., S.D.N.Y. 1948, 8 F.R.D. 585, and a federal district court in Tennessee in Brackett v. Woodall Food Products, Inc., D.C., E.D. Tenn. 1951, 12 F.R.D. 4, 5, both required defendant to disclose information concerning liability insurance carried by defendant. The district judge in New York based his decision upon the ground that "it may be generally relevant" which seems to be a more or less nebulous reason. To say that a thing may be generally relevant implies with equal weight that it may not be relevant. The language of Rule 26(b) requires that it shall be relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action in order to authorize its production. It does not authorize such discovery if perchance it may be relevant. If its disclosure would be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence", it would be sufficiently relevant to require its disclosure, but, with due respect to the district judge in the New York case, we do not believe the above-quoted phrase used by him is sufficient ground upon which to rest his decision. The decision of the federal district court in the Brackett case, supra, is based, in part, upon the ground that the Tennessee legislature in 1951 passed a law requiring all operators of motor vehicles under certain circumstances to "show financial responsibility" which is defined as requiring specified minimum limits of liability in insurance policies. The court concluded from the tenor and purpose of such legislation that such insurance policies "* * * are definitely relevant to the subject matter of the pending actions growing out of accidents covered by such policies * * *." On the other hand, a federal district court in Pennsylvania in McClure v. Boeger, D.C., E.D.Pa. 1952, 105 F. Supp. 612, and a federal district court in McNelley v. Perry, supra, refused to require disclosure concerning coverage on amount covered by a liability insurance policy in automobile accident cases. In the McClure case the court in denying the motion to disclose facts concerning the insurance policy stated that while such information might be advantageous to plaintiff in determining whether or not to accept an offer to settle out of court, but, if it constituted good cause for such discovery it would be equally sound in requiring every defendant in a civil case, tort or contract, to disclose his wealth to plaintiff. The federal district court in Tennessee in denying the motion for discovery in a like case stated that: This appears to us to be fully justified by the language used in Rule 26(b), supra. The claim of respondent that plaintiff is entitled to such information for evaluation of his case for settlement was repudiated in Jeppesen v. Swanson, 243 Minn. 547, 68 N.W.2d 649, 658. Specifically, the court said: In the case of Layton v. Cregan & Mallory Co., 263 Mich. 30, 248 N.W. 539, the court required the production of an insurance policy covering the automobile involved in an accident in which plaintiff was injured. This was done however, solely upon the issue raised in the pleadings in which defendant denied ownership of the car. Thereupon plaintiff sought production of the insurance policy under Rule 40. The court stated that if the insurance policy showed ownership of the car it was admissible for that purpose. This, of course, is thoroughly sound. In McDowell Associates Inc., v. Pennsylvania Railroad, D.C., S.D.N.Y. 1956, 142 F. Supp. 751, the federal district court held that ownership of goods shipped over the Pennsylvania Railroad lines was an issue in the case and that the interrogatories relating to whether he had filed claim with insurance companies for loss of the goods should have been answered as relevant to the issues of ownership raised in the pleadings. The case upon which respondent most strongly relies is People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher, 12 Ill. 2d 231, 145 N.E.2d 588, 590. The court in that case reviewed most of the cases upon the question here involved and stated that the opinions on the subject were in conflict in both the state and in the federal district courts. The Illinois Supreme Court Rule, S.H.A. ch. 110, § 101.19-4, upon which the Illinois court relies in part in determining the issues in said case, insofar as pertinent, reads as follows: The court stated however that: The court then proceeds: The court continued: The court continued: The court concludes its decision by saying that: A.R.S. § 28-1170, enacted in 1951, provides for the use of a standard "motor vehicle liability policy" (carriage non-compulsory) fixing a minimum amount for bodily injuries suffered in an automobile accident but it does not, in our opinion, have the effect of changing Rule 26(b). It is interesting to note that after the above decision of the Illinois Supreme Court was handed down Judge Juergens of the United States District Court for the eastern district of Illinois, on January 13, 1958, in the case of Gallimore v. Dye, D.C.E.D.Ill. 1958, 21 F.D.R. 283, after considering the identical question we have under consideration, denied the right of discovery concerning the liability insurance coverage of the defendant. He quoted with approval the language of the district judge of the United States District Court for the eastern district of Tennessee, northern division, in McNelley v. Perry, supra, to the effect that Rule 26(b), supra, limits the discovery in such cases to information either for use in the trial or to use it as a lead to information for use at the trial. He held that such information would neither be relevant to show negligence nor would it be calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence showing negligence, and if permitted it would, under the cover of said rules, be possible to ascertain the nature and value of all other assets of a defendant which would constitute an invasion of his private rights in violation of the fifth amendment to the federal constitution. The California decisions upon this question cited in People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher, supra, are of no aid to respondent for the reason that the California decisions rest upon a statute there to the effect that the insurance of the owner of an automobile causing injury to another inures to the benefit of the injured persons. The California court has interpreted this to mean that after such injured person has recovered a judgment for such injuries from the owner of the car he is then entitled to judgment against the insurance company issuing the policy. As in Illinois, the California court holds that the contract of insurance is not a private matter between the insurer and the insured for the reason that by the statute the insured is declared to be beneficially interested in such insurance policy. As in Illinois, the insured is held *298 to have such an interest as entitled him to discovery under interrogatories concerning the nature and extent of defendant's coverage. Such is not the case in Arizona. We held in Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. Morrison, 26 Ariz. 281, 224 P. 822, 825, that: The question in the Tom Reed case, supra, arose in a different manner than that involved in the instant case. There it arose on a voir dire examination of a juror. The pronouncement there made has been many times since enforced and may be said to be the established public policy of this state. The law pronounced in the Tom Reed case is substantive in character. Rules 33 and 26(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, are procedural. Therefore, we do not feel justified in uprooting a principle of substantive law to conform to a rule of procedure unless it is inescapable in the absence of statutes tending to broaden its use. We agree with the interpretation placed upon Rule 26(b), supra, by the federal district court in McNelley v. Perry, supra, to the effect that its purpose was to limit the meaning of the term "which is relevant to the subject matter involved" to the discovery of facts either (1) to use in the trial, or (2) to use it as a lead to information for use in a trial. [18 F.R.D. 361.] In Maddox v. Grauman, Ky., 265 S.W.2d 939, 41 A.L.R.2d 964, the Kentucky Court of Appeals in discussing a rule substantially identical with Rule 26(b), supra, held that a standard automobile liability policy evidences a contract which inures to the benefit of every person who may be negligently injured by the assured as completely as if such injured person had been named in the policy. The court held plaintiff in that case was entitled to discover by interrogatory the pertinent facts relative to insurance coverage by defendant. We do not agree with this view upon the ground that the language in Rule 26(b), supra, does not justify it. We believe that the decisions holding against discovery in cases like the instant case are better reasoned than those holding to the contrary. The California and Illinois cases cited by respondent are based in part upon their interpretation of statutes which, in our opinion, in nowise justify the broadening of the language used in Rule 26(b), supra. Our public policy declared in Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. Morrison, supra, is diametrically opposed to respondent's *299 position and Rule 26(b), supra, construed most favorably in favor of the right of discovery in the instant case does not justify it. For the reasons above stated we hold that plaintiff is not entitled to the information sought in the above interrogatories. It is therefore ordered that the alternative writ be made permanent. UDALL, C.J., and WINDES, STRUCKMEYER, and JOHNSON, JJ., concurring.