Court Opinion

ID: 9854791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:14:07.538625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:24.743924
License: Public Domain

HODGES, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I am of the opinion that the defendant should be required to answer the interrogatories relating to matters of automobile liability insurance coverage and should be required to produce such policy for inspection. As to the other issues and propositions set out in the majority opinion, I concur.
The majority opinion adopts the view that such discovery of automobile insurance coverage is not relevant to the issues in the case and was not within the contemplation of the discovery statute. I am unable to agree with this view and for the following reasons I dissent to this portion of the majority opinion.
Although a policy of automobile liability insurance may not be relevant to any triable issue formed by the pleadings in a case, it is vital and relevant to the subject matter and the judgment. It is difficult to ascribe *976to the reasoning that a defendant’s ability or inability to pay a judgment is not a matter of relevancy before trial. One of the-primary considerations to an injured party is the ability or inability of the one who caused the injury to respond to payment of damages in the event a judgment is rendered against him. We must be aware of practicalities of litigation. The preparation, investigation, court deposits and labor expended are all matters of relevancy to an injured party. Should an injured party be subjected to a useless expenditure of effort and money to recover an uncollectible judgment because he is unable to discover, prior to trial, whether the defendant has liability insurance? I think not. In People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher, 12 Ill.2d 231, 145 N.E.2d 588, 593, the court said:
“Unlike other assets, a liability insurance policy exists for the single purpose of satisfying the liability that it covers. It has no other function and no other value. Litigation is a practical business. The litigant sues to recover money and is not interested in a paper judgment that cannot be collected. The presence or absence of liability insurance is frequently the controlling factor in determining the manner in which a case is prepared for trial. That there will be actual rather than nominal recovery conditions every aspect of preparation for the trial of these cases, — investigators, doctors, photographers and even the taking of depositions. * * * ”
The automobile liability insurance policy is just as important and vital to an injured party, as it is to the insurer and insured. Suppose, the insured who negligently injured the plaintiff, also was negligent in not notifying his insurer of the pending action against him. Such neglect often results in relieving the insurance company from liability. 18 A.L.R.2d 443. Must the injured party again-be subjected to the tortfeasor’s negligence? When a person has been injured through the negligence of another, he has such a special interest in the insurance contract that it is often said, the injured person is a third party beneficiary. Ewing v. Colorado Farm Mut. Cas. Co., 133 Colo. 447, 296 P.2d 1040.
The enactment by our legislature of the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, 47 O.S.1961, §§ 7-201 to 7-219, expresses the public interest and concern in automobile liability insurance contracts. In Maddox v. Grauman, Ky., 265 S.W.2d 939, 41 A.L.R.2d 964, the court in pointing out that the liability insurance policy is for the benefit of injured persons said:
“If the insurance question is relevant to the subject matter after the plaintiff prevails, why is it not relevant while the action pends? We believe it is. An insurance contract is ' no longer a secret,, private, confidential arrangement between the insurance carrier and the individual but it is an agreement that embraces those whose person or property may be injured by the negligent act of the insured. We conclude the answers-to the propounded questions are relevant: to the subject matter of the litigation-⅜ * * )>
Title 12 O.S.1965 Supp., Sec. 548, provides that a party is entitled to the inspection and copying of any documents notr privileged which:
“ * * * constitute or contain evidence relating to any of the matters within the scope of examination permitted by-deposition. * * * ”
In State ex rel. Westerheide v. Shilling,. 190 Okl. 305, 123 P.2d 674, we held:
“ * * * The right to take the deposition is not limited by the restrictions on its use. The result is that each party may, after summons is served on the-defendant, take the deposition of the opposite party without first establishing his motive in taking it, or agreeing to be bound by his testimony or to use it at the trial * *
The court further said:
“ * * * The fact that relators may have had a threefold purpose in taking the deposition of Frame (to aid in further pleading, to aid in preparing for *977trial, and to use at the trial if favorable) does not detract from his right to take the deposition.” (Emphasis Supplied).
A part of the preparation for trial is the availing of one’s self of all available and pertinent facts for a proper evaluation of the case. An injured party cannot adequately prepare for trial' without a complete disclosure of all facts pertaining to the defendant’s ability to pay a judgment. There cannot be an adequate and complete preparation for trial without a proper evaluation and apprisal of the case. And there can be no proper evaluation without information concerning the defendant’s ability to pay a judgment. The knowledge and extent of an automobile liability insurance contract does immeasurably aid the plaintiff in preparing for trial as contemplated by the Shilling case, supra, and our discovery statute.
In my opinion, complete disclosure of insurance information would facilitate, not hinder, the settlement of lawsuits prior to trial on a fair and equitable basis. The vast majority of lawsuits which are disposed of by settlement before trial are those cases where both sides have diligently made investigation and preparation, and all secrets, mysteries and surprises have been eliminated between the litigants. If an injured party is to be adequately prepared for settlement discussions he must be apprised of the extent and ability of the defendant to satisfy a judgment. Such knowledge is vital to a proper and realistic evaluation of one’s injuries for settlement purposes. We have come a long way through our discovery procedures and pretrial methods in eliminating the traditional practice of “justice by ambush.” The whole concept of modern discovery procedures and pre-trial. methods is to eliminate guesswork, surprises and the “sporting theory of justice.”
In my opinion the inspection and copying of an automobile liability insurance policy such as requested by the plaintiff herein is not only relevant but necessary in aiding him in his preparation for trial. The withholding of such insurance contracts can serve no useful purpose, while a complete disclosure of facts by both parties will promote a speedy disposition of cases and see that justice is done.