Court Opinion

ID: 9905177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:06:01.788771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:52.656018
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CYNTHIA BOATRIGHT, as                  )
Representative of the Estate of        )
CAROLINE EKONG, AND JOHN               )
ETIM, KOKOMMA EKONG and                )
KAEINI EKONG, individually,            )
and all collectively as Assignees of   )       Case No.: N20C-11-022 CEB
CHRISTOPHER FRICK,                     )
                                       )
      Plaintiffs,                      )
                                       )
      v.                               )
                                       )
STATE FARM INSURANCE                   )
COMPANY d/b/a STATE FARM               )
FIRE AND CASUALTY                      )
COMPANY,                               )
                                       )
      Defendant.                       )

                         Submitted: August 10, 2023
                         Decided: November 28, 2023

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Upon Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel,
                               DENIED

Joel H. Fredricks, Esquire, Gary S. Nitsche, Esquire, Nitsche & Fredricks,
LLC, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Joseph J. Bellew, Esquire, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendants.

BUTLER, RJ.
                                           1
                                      INTRODUCTION

      This is an insurance coverage dispute between Plaintiffs Cynthia Boatright as

representative of the Estate of Caroline Ekong, John Etim, Kokomma Ekong, and

Kaeini Ekong, individually, and all collectively as Assignees of Christopher Frick

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant State Farm Insurance Company d/b/a State

Farm and Casualty Company (“State Farm”). On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed

a Complaint against State Farm, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach

of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiffs contend that State Farm

wrongfully denied Christopher Frick insurance coverage under his parents’

homeowners’ policy in an underlying wrongful death lawsuit.

      On March 15, 2023, Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery from State Farm

by filing a Motion to Compel Ownership Claim File (the “Motion”). The Motion

seeks to compel State Farm to produce the claim file of James and Cynthia Frick

(the “Fricks”) in the underlying lawsuit. State Farm objected to this discovery

request on the grounds that the Fricks’ claim file is not relevant to this case.

      Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, for the reasons stated herein,

the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is DENIED.

                                           2
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      In October, 2015, Christopher Frick killed his former mental health therapist,

Caroline Ekong, stabbing her to death in the foyer of her Hockessin home.1 Mrs.

Ekong’s body was discovered by her daughter, Kokomma Ekong.2

      After murdering Mrs. Ekong, Christopher returned home to his parents’

house, also in Hockessin.3 Once home, Christopher told his parents what he had

done, and they called the police.4 The police arrested Christopher and he was

charged with multiple offenses. Prior to trial, Christopher pled “guilty, but mentally

ill” to first-degree murder.5 He was sentenced and is currently in prison.6

      In September, 2017, in the aftermath of the murder, Cynthia Boatright as

representative of the Estate of Caroline Ekong, John Etim, Kokomma Ekong, and

Kaeini Ekong filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Christopher and his parents in

this Court (the “Underlying Lawsuit”).7

      When the Underlying Lawsuit was filed, the Fricks and Christopher sought

insurance coverage from State Farm under a homeowners’ policy (the “Policy”)

1
  Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Ownership Claim File Ex. 5 ¶ 4.
2
  Id.
3
  Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Ownership Claim File Ex. 7 at 5.
4
  Id.
5
  Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Ownership Claim File Ex. 5 ¶ 40.
6
  Id. at ¶ 2.
7
  Compl., Sept. 18, 2017; see Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Ownership Claim File Ex. 5.
                                          3
issued to the Fricks.8 State Farm agreed to provide the Fricks with a defense under

the Policy pursuant to a reservation of rights.9 But State Farm denied any coverage

whatsoever to Christopher.10

      On September 22, 2020, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of all claims

against the Fricks in the Underlying Lawsuit.11 Two days later, in the face of no

opposition from Christopher, the Court entered summary judgement on behalf of

Plaintiffs as to Christopher.12 On October 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs and Christopher

stipulated to an arbitration award of $15,816,580.00 in damages. Christopher then

assigned his rights under the Policy to the Plaintiffs.

      In November, 2020, Plaintiffs commenced this action against State Farm,

alleging that State Farm wrongfully denied Christopher insurance coverage under

the Policy (“Coverage Lawsuit”).13 The Coverage Lawsuit asserts that State Farm

breached the Policy and acted tortiously in that it: a) failed to provide Christopher

with a defense to the allegations in the Underlying Lawsuit; b) failed to accept an

offer to settle the Boatright Plaintiffs’ complaint within the limit of liability coverage

8
  Compl. ¶ 3., Nov. 3, 2020; see Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Ownership Claim File ¶ 1.
9
  Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Ownership Claim File ¶ 1. A reservation of rights is a notice
given by an insurer that it will provide a defense while preserving its rights to deny
coverage under the insurance policy. See generally 14A Couch on Insurance §
202:39 (Nov. 2023 Update).
10
   Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Ownership Claim File ¶ 1.
11
   Stipul. of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice, Sep. 22, 2020, N17C-09-180 CEB.
12
   Order, Sep. 24, 2022, N17C-09-180 CEB.
13
   Compl. ¶ 18, Nov. 3, 2020.
                                            4
under the Policy, causing a judgment to be entered against Christopher; c) exposing

Christopher to personal liability for the claims against him for negligence, which

met the definition of an occurrence under the Policy and was not subject to the

exclusion cited by the Defendant in their denials; and d) failed to provide Christopher

with counsel despite the four corners of the Complaint containing allegations that

triggered the duty to defend under the Policy.14 Plaintiffs allege that State Farm’s

denial of coverage to Christopher was willful, wanton, malicious, and/or in bad

faith.15

       In the Motion, Plaintiffs seek to compel State Farm to produce the “Claim

File” which, while never really defined by the parties, the Court understands to mean

the file concerning the defense of Christopher’s parents and so we will call it the

“Parents’ File.”16 This is necessary because the parties also refer to a “duty to defend

file” which, again, is never defined in these pleadings, but the Court understands that

to mean the file relating to State Farm’s denial of coverage to Christopher Frick.

The Court will therefore refer to this as the “Christopher File.”

       State Farm has given over the “Christopher File” to the Plaintiffs in discovery.

That file is not in dispute. State Farm resists turning over the “Parents’ File,” on

14
   Id. at ¶ 18(a)-(d).
15
   Id. at ¶ 21.
16
   Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Ownership Claim File ¶¶ 4, 12–13.
                                           5
grounds of relevancy.17 State Farm argues that the Parents’ File does not pertain to

a claim at issue in the case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

      Delaware courts have “long recognized” that “broad and liberal treatment” of

discovery promotes “issue formulation,” assists in “fact revelation,” and reduces trial

“surprise.”18 Therefore, Rule 26 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure

(“Civil Rule 26”) provides that parties to litigation “may obtain discovery regarding

any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and

proportional to the needs of the case.”19       Generally, “[i]nformation sought in

discovery is considered relevant ‘if there is any possibility that the information

sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action.’”20 “[R]elevant evidence

is discoverable, even if it may not be admissible.”21

17
   Def.’s Opposition to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel ¶¶ 15–18.
18
   Levy v. Stern, 1996 WL 742818, at *2 (Del. Dec. 20, 1996); see Olszewski v.
Howell, 253 A.2d 77, 78 (Del. Super. 1969) (observing that liberal discovery rules
can “expedite the disposition of the case”).
19
   Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 26(b)(1).
20
   Burkhart v. Genworth Financial, Inc., 2023 WL 1434059, at *1 (Del. Ch. Feb. 1,
2023) (quoting In re Appraisal of Dole Food Co., Inc., 114 A.3d 541, 548 (Del. Ch.
2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
21
   Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 26(b)(1) cmt.1.
                                          6
      Because “[t]he scope of discovery is broad and far-reaching”,22 “objections to

discovery requests, in general, will not be allowed.”23 When faced with a discovery

objection, the requesting party may move under Rule 37 to compel production.24

Rule 37 imposes a “slight” burden on the movant.25 The movant need only offer

“some minimal explanation” as to why the information sought is relevant.26 If that

burden is met, then the objecting party must explain “why and in what way the

information requested is privileged or otherwise improperly requested.”27

      Although “the scope of discovery is broad,” it is “not limitless.”28 The

“application of the discovery rules is subject to” the Court’s discretion.29 It is the

Court’s duty to “confine the scope of discovery to those matters that are truly

relevant and to prevent discovery from evolving into a fishing expedition or from

furthering purposes ulterior to the litigation.”30 Discovery should be denied if the

22
   Woodstock v. Wolf Creek Surgeons, P.A., 2017 WL 3727019, at *6 (Del. Super.
Aug. 30, 2017).
23
   Surf’s Up Legacy Partners, LLC v. Virgin Fest, LLC, 2021 WL 5049459, at *2
(Del. Super. Nov. 1, 2021).
24
   Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 37(a).
25
   In re Appraisal of Dole Food Co., Inc., 114 A.3d at 550.
26
   Henlopen Hotel, Inc. v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3384843, at *1 (Del.
Super. Jul. 26, 2019).
27
   Twitter, Inc. v. Musk, 2022 WL 3591142, at *1 (Del. Ch. Aug. 23, 2022).
28
   In re Tyson Foods, Inc., 2007 WL 2685011, at *3 (Del. Ch. Sep. 11, 2007).
29
   Mann v. Oppenheimer & Co., 517 A.2d 1056, 1061 (Del. 1986).
30
   Omnicare, Inc. v. Mariner Health Care Mgmt. Co., 2009 WL 1515609, at *3 (Del.
Ch. May 29, 2009) (quoting Plaza Sec. Co. v. Office, 1986 WL 14417, at *5 (Del.
Ch. Dec. 15, 1986)).
                                          7
Court “is satisfied that the administration of justice will be impeded by [its]

allowance.”31

                                   DISCUSSION

      Civil Rule 26 provides that a party to litigation “may obtain discovery

regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense

and proportional to the needs of the case.”32 In the Motion, Plaintiffs argue that the

Parents File is relevant to their claims in the Coverage Lawsuit. In support, Plaintiffs

primarily rely on the case of Tackett v. State Farm and Cas. Ins. Co.33

      In Tackett the allegation was that the insurance company had delayed payment

of underinsured motorist coverage in bad faith.34 The insurance company’s litigation

defense was that its handling of the plaintiff’s claim had been in accord with its

“routine handling” of such claims.35       In response to a discovery request, the

insurance company produced part of the claim file but withheld the remainder on

grounds of attorney-client privilege.36

31
   Mann, 517 A.2d at 1061 (quoting Fish Engineering Corp. v. Hutchinson, 162 A.2d
722, 725 (Del. 1960)).
32
   Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 26(b)(1).
33
   653 A.2d 254 (Del. 1995).
34
   Id. at 256-57.
35
   Id. at 258.
36
   Id. at 257.
                                           8
      The Tackett Court ruled that once the defendant insurance company alleged a

routine handling of the claim, the plaintiffs “could challenge those allegations only

with a full showing of the facts contained in the claim file.”37 Further, without access

to the complete claim file, the plaintiffs “would be forced to accept as true” the

defendant insurance company’s “claim of routine handling.”38 Thus, the plaintiff’s

claim for bad faith and the defendants affirmative reliance on the “routine handling”

of the case implicated the entire claims file thereby creating a “compelling need” to

discover the full context in which the insurance company handled the claim.39

      In Plaintiff’s view here, Tackett is significant insofar as the insurer disclosed

part of its claim file but not all of it. The Court said “the disclosure of even a part of

the contents of a privileged communication surrenders the privilege as to those

communications.”40 But that was an observation by the Court, not its holding.

Plaintiff makes more of it than the Court did.

      Here, Plaintiffs place primary emphasis on what it believes was an improper

commingling of the two files. Plaintiffs urge that due to this alleged impropriety,

Defendant has waived any claim it might make to refuse production of both files.

This proposition does not flow logically from the Tackett decision or, for that matter,

37
   Id. at 260.
38
   Id.
39
   Tackett, 653 A.2d at 259-60.
40
   Tackett, 653 A.2d at 260 (citing Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, Del. Supr. 603
A.2d 818, 825 (Del. 1992)).
                                            9
from common sense. A defendant can no more avoid disclosure of discoverable

materials by the mere artifice of putting it in a different file than a plaintiff can

mandate disclosure because materials from the two files were mixed up.

      If the insurer opens a claim file, which we will call Claim 1, and for whatever

reason, it elects to break that file down into Claim 1A and Claim 1B, that would

seem to be the insurer’s business, and could be undertaken for any number of

reasons, none of any particular legal relevance. Here, the deposition testimony was

that the two files in question both shared the same claim number – one reason why

materials might find themselves into the wrong one of the two files.

      Let us suppose further that the insurer, in response to a discovery request in a

lawsuit concerning Claim 1B, elects to simply turn the entire 1B claim file to

opposing counsel. Does that make the Claim 1A file discoverable? Of course not.

Suppose a clerk erroneously filed materials belonging in the 1A file into the 1B file.

Does that make the 1A file discoverable? Of course not.

      Is there evidence that the segregators of the files into 1A and 1B did so for the

purpose of shielding from discovery materials that would otherwise be discoverable?

Not in this record. Rather, Plaintiff urges that the simple act of misfiling, renders

the 1A file discoverable. The Court does not accept that proposition.

                                         10
      The Plaintiffs also cite Thomas v. Harford Mut. Ins. Co.41 to support their

Motion. But Thomas was a case denying the requested claim file discovery, finding

that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a “compelling need” for the claim file which,

the Thomas Court ruled, “must rest on more than the making of a bad faith claim.”42

      The Trial Court “has broad discretion in determining the scope of

discovery.”43 A “claims file is a unique, contemporaneously prepared history of the

[] [insurer’s] handling of the claim.”44 In Delaware, “the scope of document

discovery must be limited to only the production of documents relevant to the subject

matter that is being litigated between the parties.”45 The Fricks are not parties to this

lawsuit, State Farm defended them in the Underlying Lawsuit, and they did not

murder Caroline Ekong.

      In this case, the Plaintiffs have not shown that the Parents File is relevant to a

claim or defense in the Coverage Lawsuit. The record in this case indicates that

some documents were misfiled. That is all it shows. Misfiled documents, without

more, does not make out a case of waiver and that was not the holding in Tackett.

41
   Thomas v. Harford Mut. Ins. Co., 2004 WL 1172882 (Del. Super. Apr. 20, 2004).
42
   Id. at *5.
43
   Wei v. Zoox, Inc., 268 A.3d 1207, 1212 (Del. Ch. 2022).
44
   Boyer-Gray v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 1991 WL 270630, at *2 (Del. Super.
Dec. 6, 1991).
45
   Hiller v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Services, Inc., 2023 WL 107389, at *2 (Del.
Super. Jan. 4, 2023) (citations omitted).
                                           11
      At its core, the matter before the Court is an insurance coverage dispute. The

dispute centers on whether State Farm owed Christopher coverage under the Policy

for the Underlying Lawsuit. The Plaintiffs have not shown that the Parents File

contains information that may be relevant to the subject matter of this action. As

such, the Court will sustain Defendant’s objection to disclosure of the Parent’s file.

The Motion is DENIED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                              /s/ Charles E. Butler
                                              Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge

                                         12