Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01659/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01659-3/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kayle Adams, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

American Family Mutual Insurance, Co.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-1659-PCT-DKD

ORDER

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' June 19, 2006 Discovery Dispute Memorandum

addressing discovery of reserve information. The Memorandum did not dissuade the Court

from its preliminary view that reserve information is not generally discoverable under Arizona

state practice. Further, the Court is not inclined to allow such discovery as it is afield from the

issues of whether the insurer complied with its obligation "to immediately conduct an adequate

investigation, act reasonably in evaluating the claim, and act promptly in paying a legitimate

claim." Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 196 Ariz 234, 238, 995 P.2d 276, 280

(2000). In addition, discovery of reserve information would necessarily require additional

discovery of collateral maters to place the requested discovery in context. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs' oral motion to compel, presented during the June 19, 2006 telephonic discovery

conference, is DENIED.

DATED this 27th day of June, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-01659-DKD Document 39 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 1