Court Opinion

ID: 9628606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:26:02.396244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:08.264928
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frantz
specially concurring:
Rule 26 (b) is as follows:
“Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided by rule 30 (b) or (d), the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts. It is not ground for objection that the testimony will be inadmissible at the trial if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Emphasis supplied.)
I believe stress should be placed upon that portion of the rule which provides for examination on any relevant *527matter relating to the claim or defense of any other party as well as the claim or defense of the examining party. It furnishes the plumb-line for testing the asserted right to interrogate concerning the existence, and amount, of insurance.
Immediately an assured is involved in an accident covered by his insurance policy, he has in effect a claim against the insurance company. When the assured becomes party to a suit, the party examining him has the right, under Rule 26 (b), to interrogate him concerning his claim against the insurance company.
Thus, believing that the rule provides for an examination in the manner sought here, I specially concur in the majority opinion.