Opinion ID: 201501
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Hartford's Refusal to Fulfill Wright's Requests for Certain Documentary Evidence

Text: 47 Wright claims that Hartford declined to provide him with a transcript of a telephone conversation between them, and with a copy of the Summary Detail Report — which contained summaries of Hartford's communications with Wright, his doctors, and among examiners — despite his written requests. Hartford responds that it did provide one requested telephone transcript and that a second one was requested for an occasion when, in fact, only a recorded message had been left on Wright's voicemail. As for the Summary Detail Report, Hartford indicates that the substance thereof was either already known to Wright, or was communicated to him in letters, telephone conversations and copies of his claim file from Hartford. 48 It appears that Hartford did provide adequate documentary evidence to Wright, and we decline to interpret the omission of the Summary Detail Report as an indication of bad faith. 49 Wright, thus, failed to establish any improper motivations on the part of Hartford, amounting to a conflict of interest. Accordingly, the district court properly reviewed the substantive merits of Wright's claims under an arbitrary and capricious standard. 50