Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00297/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00297-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTIAN NAYLOR, an individual; and

CHRISTIAN NAYLOR dba NAYLOR

CONSTRUCTION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY,

a corporation; NAVIGATORS

MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a

corporation; LINCOLN GENERAL

INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation;

GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, a

corporation, W.R. BERKLEY

CORPORATION, a corporation and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12-cv-297 BEN (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART,

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

[ECF No. 38.]

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 10, 2012, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference in the aboveentitled matter. After hearing from counsel of record regarding the status of Defendant Gemini

Insurance Company’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, the Court requested briefing

on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

Plaintiff Christian Naylor of Naylor Construction is a general contractor. Defendant

Gemini Insurance is the insurance company of one of Plaintiff's subcontractors, Coast

Contracting & Development, Inc. Plaintiff contends it is an additional insured under the

12cv297 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00297-BEN-WMC Document 46 Filed 10/05/12 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

subcontractor's policy with Gemini. As proof of its status as an additional insured, Plaintiff

argues it was provided with a Certificate of Insurance and Additional Insured Endorsement. In

the course of discovery, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production (“RFP”) on Gemini and

Gemini objected to the RFPs on the following grounds: (1) confidential trade secret; (2)

privileged under the attorney-client and work product doctrines; (3) relevance; and (4)

overbreadth. Gemini’s responsive document production consisted only of objections and

certified copies of Gemini’s insurance policies. Plaintiff’s filed the instant motion to compel to

obtain Gemini’s claims file and other documents it contends are relevant and needed to respond

to Gemini’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Plaintiff is an additional

insured as is required by the Gemini insurance policy. The hearing on Gemini’s motion for

summary judgment is scheduled for October 15, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable Roger

T. Benitez. [ECF No.40.] 

A. Gemini Insurance Company’s Objections to Plaintiff’s RFPs

Gemini argues Plaintiff’s discovery requests are irrelevant and boilerplate in light of the

fact that each of its insurance policies includes language defining an “additional insured” as: “an

insured any person or organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such

person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or

organization be added as an additional insured on your policy.” (Italics added.) Gemini argues

the Certificate of Liability Insurance provided to Plaintiff by its subcontractor’s insurance broker

does not qualify as a written contract to add an insured as is required under Gemini’s policy, but

is merely a receipt showing that some policy has been issued. Gemini argues the majority of

Plaintiff’s one-size-fits-all production requests are irrelevant to the threshold issue here which is,

does the Certificate of Liability Insurance (“COI”) constitute a written contract or agreement

under the Gemini policy language? Gemini argues that the lack of an actual contract naming

Plaintiff as an additional insured as required by Gemini makes Plaintiff’s document requests on

the issues of what may constitute an agreement or what would constitute a waiver of the

additional insured policy provision irrelevant.

2 12cv297 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00297-BEN-WMC Document 46 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Its Requests for Production

Plaintiff argues it has the right to review Gemini’s claims file to determine whether it

contains any information to support Plaintiff’s allegations rather than allowing Gemini to

determine what in the claims file may be likely to lead to relevant evidence. Specifically,

Plaintiff states it might discover information in the claims file pertaining to: (1) Gemini's reasons

for declining coverage; (2) Gemini’s initial interpretation and review of the policy language

such that a waiver argument could be made in support of Plaintiff's claim; and (3)

communications between Gemini and its broker regarding the Certificate of Insurance or the

additional insured provisions. Plaintiff also argues it needs claims file information to oppose

Gemini’s pending motion for summary judgment1 on the issue of whether Plaintiff is an

additional insured under its subcontractor’s policy with Gemini. Plaintiff notes that the standard

of review for a motion to compel is broad-based and designed to assist Plaintiff not only in

proving its contract claim on the issue of whether Plaintiff qualifies as an additional insured, but

Plaintiff’s overall claim for bad faith.

II. Standard under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense.... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This rule is to be considered broadly, to include “any matter that bears on,

or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the

case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). 

///

///

1

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d): If a nonmovant shows by affidavit, or declaration that, for specified reasons, it

cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:...(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or

declarations or to take discovery;....”

3 12cv297 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00297-BEN-WMC Document 46 Filed 10/05/12 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefing as well as Plaintiff’s RFPs and Gemini’s

objections and responses. The Court finds many of Plaintiff’s requests are general and overbroad

(such as RFP Nos. 28-38 on data retention policies) and unlikely to assist Plaintiff in collecting

facts to support its opposition to the motion for summary judgment on the limited issue of

whether Plaintiff is an additional insured under the Gemini insurance policy. In its motion to

compel, Plaintiff acknowledges the time is not yet ripe for discovery on data retention issues and

requests the Court reserve ruling on RFP Nos. 28 to 38 until, if necessary, a further document

production and meet-and-confer process have been done. [ECF No. 38 at p. 8.] The Court

agrees. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to RFP Nos. 28 to 38 is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As for requests that pointedly address the policy interpretation and

claims handling information that Plaintiff contends is vital to support its claim and oppose the

motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s specifically identifies the following RFPs in the chart

below for the Court’s consideration in its motion to compel. The Court’s ruling appears in the

third and last column.

Request for Production

No.

Arguments re: Relevance Court’s Ruling

#2: Any and all

DOCUMENTS or tangible

things RELATING TO the

underwriting or issuance of

YOUR liability Insurance

POLICY numbers ...

including all Schedules,

Endorsements and Forms

attached and made a part

of the policy.

Plaintiff contends underwriting

information would indicate

whether Gemini included

Plaintiff as a factor in its

assessment of risk.

Risk assessment and the costs

of coverage and/or premiums

is not at issue in this case and

is irrelevant on the issue of

whether the COI qualifies as

a written agreement sufficient

to name Plaintiff as an

additional insured. 

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 2 is DENIED.

#3: Any and all

DOCUMENTS pertaining

to reinsurance, between

February 26, 2004, and the

present for the subject

POLICY.

Plaintiff contends reinsurance 

information would indicate

whether Gemini included

Plaintiff as a factor in its

assessment of risk.

Risk management between

two or more insurance

companies in an insurer/

reinsurer relationship is not at

issue here and is irrelevant as

to whether the COI qualifies

as a written agreement

sufficient to name Plaintiff as

an additional insured. 

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 3 is DENIED.

4 12cv297 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00297-BEN-WMC Document 46 Filed 10/05/12 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

#4: Any and all

DOCUMENTS

RELATING TO reserves

for any CLAIMS made on

the policy.

Plaintiff contends the

establishment of a reserve may

show whether Gemini believed

there was coverage under the

policy for additional insureds.

The threshold issue which

permeates this case and is

presented by Defendant’s

motion for summary

judgment is whether there is

coverage for Plaintiff as an

additional insured. The

establishment of, or amount

of, reserves kept by Gemini

in order to meet its insurance

obligations is not at issue

here and is irrelevant on the

issue of whether the COI

qualifies as a written

agreement sufficient to name

Plaintiff as an additional

insured. Plaintiff’s motion

as to RFP No. 4 is DENIED.

#5 and #6: Any and all

DOCUMENTS...COMMU

NICATIONS....

RELATING TO the costs

of any CLAIMS made on

the POLICY that was

handled by YOU from

February 26, 2004 to

present, including but no

limited to memorandums,

letters and electronic mail.

Plaintiff argues cost information

is typically requested in a bad

faith insurance case and cost

information may suggest

whether Gemini acted as if

there was contract between

Plaintiff and the subcontractor. 

 

The costs incurred by Gemini

as a result of claims made on

the policy has no bearing on

the issue of whether the COI

qualifies as a written

agreement sufficient to name

Plaintiff as an additional

insured. Plaintiff’s motion

as to RFP Nos. 5 and 6 is

DENIED.

#7: The originals of any

and all DOCUMENTS

RELATING TO YOUR

complete underwriting file

for the POLICY, including

all information related to

your investigation for any

CLAIMS made on the

POLICY from February

26, 2004 to the present,

including but no limited to

memorandums, letters and

electronic mail.

Plaintiff contends underwriting

information would indicate

whether Gemini included

Plaintiff as a factor in its

assessment of risk.

Risk assessment and the costs

of coverage and/or premiums

is not at issue in this case and

is irrelevant on the issue of

whether the COI qualifies as

a written agreement sufficient

to name Plaintiff as an

additional insured. 

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 7 is DENIED.

5 12cv297 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00297-BEN-WMC Document 46 Filed 10/05/12 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

#8: The originals of any

and all DOCUMENTS

RELATING TO YOUR

complete claims file for

any CLAIMS made on the

POLICY from February

26, 2004 to the present.

Plaintiff argues claim file

related documents may

demonstrate the applicability of

Gemini’s ‘no contract’ defense.

Plaintiff is entitled to

discover nonprivileged

documents re: claims made

under the additional insured

provision in the

subcontractor’s policy.

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 8 is GRANTED as

modified by the Court

above. 

#9: Any and all

COMMUNICATIONS

published and/or

transmitted through

DEFENDANTS’

INTRANET and/or

INTERNET RELATING

TO the POLICY.

Plaintiff argues claim file

related documents may

demonstrate the applicability of

Gemini’s ‘no contract’ defense.

Plaintiff is entitled to

discover nonprivileged

documents that refer to the

treatment or coverage of

Plaintiff under the terms of

the subcontractor’s policy.

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 9 is GRANTED as

modified by the Court

above. 

#10: Any and all

DOCUMENTS

REGARDING,

REFLECTING OR

PERTAINING TO any and

all COMMUNICATIONS,

whether written or oral,

between YOU and the

Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff argues claim file

related documents may

demonstrate the applicability of

Gemini’s ‘no contract’ defense.

Plaintiff is entitled to

discover the correspondence

between it and Gemini as it

pertains to the insurance

policy at issue in this case.

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 10 is GRANTED. 

#11: Any and all

DOCUMENTS

REGARDING,

REFLECTING OR

PERTAINING TO any and

all COMMUNICATIONS,

whether written or oral,

between YOU and any

other person/entity

regarding the policy.

Plaintiff argues claim file

related documents may

demonstrate the applicability of

Gemini’s ‘no contract’ defense. 

In particular, Plaintiff argues

the interactions between Gemini

and its agents or brokers

handling the policies may yield

information on the significance

of the Certificate of Insurance.

Plaintiff is entitled to

discover nonprivileged

documents that refer to the

treatment or coverage of

Plaintiff under the terms of

the subcontractor’s policy. Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 11 is GRANTED as

modified by the Court

above.

6 12cv297 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00297-BEN-WMC Document 46 Filed 10/05/12 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

#14: Any and all

DOCUMENTS or tangible

things RELATING TO the

interpretation or meaning

of any policy language,

including but not limited

to, grants of coverage

and/or exclusions, relied

upon by YOU to grant,

limit or deny any and all

insurance claims made

under this POLICY.

Plaintiff contends in-house

insurance documents explaining

Gemini’s policy on to how to

interpret, administer or handle

additional insured claims, may

help the Court interpret the

insurance policy language.

Gemini argues no documents on

contract interpretation are

needed because Plaintiff argued

in its opposition to the MSJ that

the “endorsement regarding an

additional insured is policy

language that is clear and

unambiguous.”

Ultimately, it is the province

of the Court to make a

threshold determination as to

whether the language of the

contract is unambiguous. 

Curry v. Moody, 40 Cal. App.

4th 1547, 1552 (Cal. Ct.

App.1995). Until such time

as the District Court makes

that decision, Plaintiff is

entitled to discover

nonprivileged documents

bearing on Gemini’s

understanding and handling

of the additional insured

language in the

subcontractor’s policy.

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 14 is GRANTED. 

#15: Any and all

DOCUMENTS related to

the policy benefits

submitted, requested,

approved or paid under the

POLICY.

Plaintiff argues claim file

related documents may

demonstrate the applicability of

Gemini’s ‘no contract’ defense.

The benefits paid under the

policy is not at issue here and

is irrelevant on the issue of

whether the COI qualifies as

a written agreement sufficient

to name Plaintiff as an

additional insured. 

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 15 is DENIED.

#16: Any and all

DOCUMENTS or tangible

things RELATING TO the

POLICY for any losses

from February 26, 2004

through present, including

but not limited to

DOCUMENTS from and

to third party adjusters and

any other consultant(s)

YOU used to investigate

claims made under the

POLICY.

Plaintiff argues claim file

related documents may

demonstrate the applicability of

Gemini’s ‘no contract’ defense.

Losses suffered under the

policy are not at issue here

and are irrelevant on the issue

of whether the COI qualifies

as a written agreement

sufficient to name Plaintiff as

an additional insured. 

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 16 is DENIED.

7 12cv297 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00297-BEN-WMC Document 46 Filed 10/05/12 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

#19: Any and all

DOCUMENTS

RELATING TO YOUR

claims manuals.

Plaintiff contends in-house

insurance documents explaining

Gemini’s policy on to how to

interpret, administer or handle

additional insured claims, may

help the Court interpret the

insurance policy language.

Plaintiff is entitled to

discover nonprivileged

documents bearing on

Gemini’s understanding and

handling of the additional

insured language in the

subcontractor’s policy.

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 19 is GRANTED as

modified by the Court

above.

#20: Any and all manuals,

guidelines, bulletins,

directives, booklets,

instruction, or other

DOCUMENTS reflecting

YOUR procedures,

practices and

methodologies for

assessing any and all

claims in good faith and

fair dealing.

Plaintiff contends in-house

insurance documents explaining

Gemini’s policy on to how to

interpret, administer or handle

additional insured claims, may

help the Court interpret the

insurance policy language.

Plaintiff is entitled to

discover nonprivileged

documents bearing on

Gemini’s handling of the

additional insured language

in the subcontractor’s policy.

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 20 is GRANTED as

modified by the Court

above.

#21: Any and all manuals,

guidelines, bulletins,

directives, booklets,

instruction, or other

DOCUMENTS reflecting

YOUR procedures,

practices and

methodologies for training

adjusters to handle claims

in good faith and with fair

dealing.

Plaintiff contends in-house

insurance documents explaining

Gemini’s policy on to how to

interpret, administer or handle

additional insured claims, may

help the Court interpret the

insurance policy language.

Requests No. 21 is overbroad

and seeks documents that are

potentially duplicative of

those documents produced in

response to more carefully

tailored RFPs. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff’s

motion as to RFP No. 21 is

DENIED.

#22: Any and all

DOCUMENTS published

and/or transmitted by

DEFENDANTS regarding

claims handling

procedures for policies

such as the POLICY

issued to Coast

Contracting.

Plaintiff contends in-house

insurance documents explaining

Gemini’s policy on to how to

interpret, administer or handle

additional insured claims, may

help the Court interpret the

insurance policy language.

Plaintiff is entitled to

discover nonprivileged

documents bearing on

Gemini’s understanding and

handling of the additional

insured language in the

subcontractor’s policy.

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 22 is GRANTED as

modified by the Court

above.

8 12cv297 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00297-BEN-WMC Document 46 Filed 10/05/12 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

#23: Any and all

underwriting manuals,

guidelines, bulletins,

directives, booklets,

instruction or other

DOCUMENTS in use by

YOU in the last ten years

RELATING TO policies

such as the POLICY

issued to Coast

Contracting.

Plaintiff contends in-house

insurance documents explaining

Gemini’s policy on to how to

interpret, administer or handle

additional insured claims, may

help the Court interpret the

insurance policy language.

Risk assessment and the costs

of coverage and/or premiums

is not at issue in this case and

is irrelevant on the issue of

whether the COI qualifies as

a written agreement sufficient

to name Plaintiff as an

additional insured. 

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

No. 23 is DENIED.

#24: Any and all

DOCUMENTS or tangible

things RELATING TO bad

faith claims against YOU

in the past 10 years

RELATING TO policies

such as the POLICY

issued to Coast

Contracting.

Plaintiff contends this

information would demonstrate

how Gemini interpreted other

additional insured claims under

similar circumstances.

Request 24 is overbroad and

irrelevant to the threshold

issue of whether the COI in

this case qualifies as a written

agreement sufficient to name

Plaintiff as an additional

insured. Plaintiff’s motion

as to RFP No. 24 is

DENIED.

#25: Any and all

COMPLAINTS filed

against YOU in the past 10

years alleging Unfair

Claims

Practices....RELATING

TO policies such as the

POLICY issued to Coast

Contracting.

Plaintiff contends this

information would demonstrate

how Gemini interpreted other

additional insured claims under

similar circumstances.

Request 25 is overbroad and

irrelevant to the threshold

issue of whether the COI in

this case qualifies as a written

agreement sufficient to name

Plaintiff as an additional

insured. Plaintiff’s motion

as to RFP No. 25 is

DENIED.

#26: Any and all

COMPLAINTS filed

against YOU in the past 10

years with a pleading for

relief of Extra Contractual

damages RELATING TO 

policies such as the

POLICY issued to Coast

Contracting.

Plaintiff contends this

information would demonstrate

how Gemini interpreted other

additional insured claims under

similar circumstances.

Request 26 is overbroad and

irrelevant to the threshold

issue of whether the COI in

this case qualifies as a written

agreement sufficient to name

Plaintiff as an additional

insured. Plaintiff’s motion

as to RFP No. 26 is

DENIED.

#27: Any and all

DOCUMENTS,

COMMUNICATIONS and

tangible things

RELATING TO prior

versions, prior drafts,

and/or policy language

changes to YOUR

POLICY within the last

ten years.

Plaintiff contends in-house

insurance documents explaining

Gemini’s policy on to how to

interpret, administer or handle

additional insured claims, may

help the Court interpret the

insurance policy language.

Historical changes to policy

language are irrelevant on the

issue of whether the COI

qualifies as a written

agreement sufficient to name

Plaintiff as an additional

insured. Plaintiff’s motion

as to RFP No. 27 is

DENIED.

9 12cv297 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00297-BEN-WMC Document 46 Filed 10/05/12 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

#40-41: Exact copies...of

all hard drives on the

desktop computers...,

servers and other

electronic media related to

this action from 2004

through present.

Exact copies of all relevant

disks, CDs, DVDs and

other removable media

related to this action.

Plaintiff argues this information

is typically requested in a bad

faith insurance case. 

Requests Nos. 40 and 41 are

overbroad and burdensome. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

Plaintiff’s motion as to RFP

Nos. 40 and 41 is DENIED.

#42: ALL DOCUMENTS

that contain or otherwise

relate to the facts or

information that YOU

contend, refutes, in any

way, the allegations

contained in the Complaint

in this action.

Plaintiff argues this information

is typically requested in a bad

faith insurance case.

Requests No. 42 is overbroad

and seeks documents that are

potentially duplicative of

those documents produced in

response to more carefully

tailored RFPs. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff’s

motion as to RFP No. 42 is

DENIED.

#43: Any and all

DOCUMENTS including

but not limited to those

documents....RELATING

TO any bonus

plan/variable pay or

incentive programs for

YOUR claims personnel

for the past ten years.

Plaintiff contends information

on variable pay would indicate

whether any factors other than

applicable policy language were

being considered during the

handling of Plaintiff’s claim.

Adjusters’ bonus

compensation structure is not

at issue here and is irrelevant

on the issue of whether the

COI qualifies as a written

agreement sufficient to name

Plaintiff as an additional

insured. Plaintiff’s motion

as to RFP No. 43 is

DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION 

In accordance with the Court’s findings expressed above, Defendants are ordered to

produce documents in response to the relevant RFPs listed above no later than October 10,

2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 5, 2012

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

10 12cv297 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00297-BEN-WMC Document 46 Filed 10/05/12 Page 10 of 10