Court Opinion

ID: 9549544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:20:26.659029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:27.995342
License: Public Domain

Collins, J.,
dissenting:
I concede there are persuasive authorities and reasons on both sides of this question and acknowledge that the majority opinion marshals them ably, but I perfer the rule allowing discovery in this case. The authorities in favor of allowing discovery should be set down. A well reasoned case favoring discovery is Johanek v. Aberle, 27 F.R.D. 272 (D. Mont. 1961). Other cases expressing a similar view are: People v. Fisher, 145 N.E.2d 588 (Ill. 1957); Pettie v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.Rptr. 267 (Cal.App. 1960); Cook v. Welty, 253 F.Supp. 875 (D. Colo. 1966); Smith v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.Rptr. 165 (Cal.App. 1961); Ellis v. Gilbert, 429 P.2d 39 (Utah 1967).
Numerous cases have held that information of the existence and amount of liability insurance meet the test of relevancy under NRCP 26(b). Those cases are: Orgel v. McCurdy, 8 F.R.D. 585 (D.N.Y. 1948); Maddox v. Grauman, 265 S.W.2d *8939 (Ky. 1954); Lucas v. District Court, 345 P.2d 1064 (Colo. 1959); Laddon v. Superior Court, 334 P.2d 638 (Cal.App. 1959); Hurt v. Cooper, 175 F.Supp. 712 (D. Ky. 1959); Schwentner v. White, 199 F.Supp. 710 (D. Mont. 1961); Rolf Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.Rptr. 142 (Cal.App. 1960); Novak v. Good Will Grange, 28 F.R.D. 394 (D. Conn. 1961); Furumizo v. United States, 33 F.R.D. 18 (D. Hawaii 1963); Miller v. Harpster, 392 P.2d 21 (Alaska 1964); Hurley v. Schmid, 37 F.R.D. 1 (D. Ore. 1965); Ash v. Farwell, 37 F.R.D. 553 (D. Kan. 1965); Ellis v. Gilbert, supra.
Some cases hold it is the insurer rather than the insured who is the real party in interest and who, in reality, defends against the claim. They are: People v. Fisher, supra; Lucas v. District Court, supra; Ellis v. Gilbert, supra.
Other cases see insurance of the type here involved as not a typical asset of the defendant since it is acquired solely for the purpose of financial protection in the event of litigation. Their fear that in allowing discovery of the sort sought here will require disclosure of all a defendant’s assets, is unfounded. Brackett v. Woodall Foods Prods., 12 F.R.D. 4 (D. Tenn. 1951); Ellis v. Gilbert, supra; People v. Fisher, supra; see also, Discovery, 35 F.R.D. 39 (1964), at 44.
Additional authority for allowing discovery of this type are: NRS 485.3091(6) (a) which provides: “The liability of the insurance carrier with respect to the insurance required by this chapter shall become absolute whenever injury or damage covered by such motor vehicle liability policy occur * * NRCP 1 which states that the rules shall be construed so as to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”; see also “Discovery — Disclosure of Existence and Policy Limits of Liability Insurance,” 7 Nat. Res. J. 313, at 321.
I would affirm the holding of the trial court.