Court Opinion

ID: 9683506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:30:06.421105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.306404
License: Public Domain

White, C. J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and the position as presented therein. An interrogatory requiring, within the discretion of the court, the disclosure of liability insurance coverage and its limits should be allowed because:
1. The term “subject matter” of an action embraces a much broader range of discovery than “admissible evidence” as to liability issues only. As the majority opinion points out, the statute follows and copies Federal Rule 26 and ordinarily calls for an interpretation consistent with the federal court’s interpretation. The important part of the rule and our statute for the pur*593poses of our examination is: “Interrogatories may relate to any matters, not privileged, which are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, * * § 25-1267.38, R. R. S. 1943. The basic premise of the majority opinion is that the interrogatory requiring the disclosure of liability insurance does not call for answers that would be admissible at the trial of the case on the issue of liability. This, in turn, is based upon the reasoning and statement in the majority opinion that says: “The subject matter is the charge of negligence against the defendant which caused the injury to the plaintiff.” It then follows, of course, that the testimony sought by such an interrogatory is not relevant to such an issue and could not be calculated to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence on this issue. The core of the reasoning of the majority opinion appears in the following language: “The answer to the propounded interrogatory would not be relevant to show negligence nor would it be reasonably calculated to ' lead to the discovery of admissible evidence showing negligence. It is not the province of the courts to. declare a matter of public policy by construing legislative language beyond its express terms. The establishment of public policy is the province of the Legislature, not the courts.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The majority opinion in this case basically operates on the premise that the definition of the “subject matter” of the action is identical with the definition of the “issues as' shown by the pleadings, in a case.” And it is true that some courts have so construed these words. As a preliminary observation, it seems to me that the very fact that the Legislature, following the federal rules, especially declared that the “subject matter” of the action would be the test is very significant. The use of a broader term than “issues” certainly indicates an attempt to open up the field of interrogatories into a broader area than exist under previous deposition procedure. The whole philosophy and purpose of pre*594trial and the newer discovery procedures are directed toward the discovery of much broader areas of information than evidence strictly material to the confined issues of liability. These purposes embrace discovery as to the whole action as distinguished from the older concept of mere perpetuation of testimony material to the issues of negligence or liability at the trial. This is well illustrated by the announced, declared, and established rule that any interrogatory, which is reasonably calculated to produce material evidence is proper. Federal Rule 26 and our statute are a calculated departure from the narrow permissibly range in classic deposition procedure as it existed before the new discovery procedures. Section 25-1267.01, R. R. S. 1943, says: “Any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories for the purpose of discovery or for use as evidence in the action or for both purposes.” (Emphasis supplied.) We, therefore, have the terms “discovery” or “for use as evidence” to be interpreted as they relate to a distinction between “subject matter” and evidence material to liability issues. An area of inquiry broader than that of the proposed opinion is apparent from an analysis of the language of these statutes themselves. As a general proposition, the cases unequivocally support the proposition that the term “subject matter” is much broader than the term “issues.” See the following authorities: 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 646, p. 57; Maddox v. Grauman (Ky. 1954), 265 S. W. 2d 939, 41 A. L. R. 2d 964; Bloomer v. Sirian Lamp Co. (1944), 4 F. R. D. 167; Hercules Powder Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. (1943), 3 F. R. D. 302; Laird v. United Shipyards (1941), 1 F. R. D. 772; Stevenson v. Melady (1940), 1 F. R. D. 329.
As is pointed out in these cases, discovery beyond the range of the issues is the better construction, but particularly in light of the fact that it is impossible at the time of discovery and the taking of interrogatories to *595determine just exactly what the issues are that are involved in the case as they may not be clearly defined at that time. I feel that to limit an examination to matters relevant only to the precise liability issues in the case at the time of the taking would be contrary to the express language and purposes of the act and would ignore the history of the development of the rule announced in the statute. An interrogatory, in my opinion, should be considered relevant where there is any reasonable probability that information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action at any stage in the proceedings prior to the satisfaction of judgment. A party should be able to discover material evidence as to issues already present in a case. He should also be able to discover facts which will enable him to either eliminate, change, or frame new issues in a case. If this be not true, what then was the purpose of the Legislature in enacting these new discovery statutes, or of Federal Rule 26, when adequate means were already afforded to discover material evidence relevant to the actual issues in a case?
2. The “subject matter” embraces those steps which are necessary to collect a judgment. It would ignore reality if it were not said that this is the end objective of the action. Since this information is, therefore, clearly discoverable at a later point in the action, why should it not be discoverable, within the discretion of the court, at any time after the commencement of the action? Is there some peculiar damage suffered by a defendant (in an insurance case) because of the time point of departure of such an interrogatory?
3. This interrogatory does not permit a fishing expedition into the general discovery of the defendant’s private wealth or personal assets. The inquiry here is directed only towards that segregated portion of a defendant’s assets (the insurance contract) which is designed to protect the plaintiff and all other injured persons on the public highways and to which contract *596the plaintiff is a third party beneficiary. What injury could there be in compelling the defendant to' disclose to the injured person information about a contract that he created for this purpose? It also seems to me that in examining this situation we are ignoring the realities. We could not honor the objection of the insurance company as such since it is not a party to the case under our procedure. Fielding v. Publix Cars, Inc., 130 Neb. 576, 265 N. W. 726, 105 A. L. R. 1306. If the insured and the company are adversary to each other with reference to disclosure, why should the company be permitted, under the guise of the contractual right to represent a defendant, to secrete that which it is usually for the best interests of a defendant to disclose? The policy and its disclosure are designed to and usually prevent a reach into a defendant’s property and assets.
4. Public policy, as expressed in our statutes, will be served as follows:
a. The financial responsibility statute requires the disclosure, by the defendant and the insurance company, to the state in the event of a personal injury to the plaintiff. Should not the disclosure be made to the very class of persons that the defendant and the insurance company protect under .the terms of the policy and which is thought important enough to require the disclosure to> the state in the interests of protecting travelers on a public highway?
b. Expedite the settlement of litigation. The subject matter of a personal accident embraces the end objective of the collection of money. As the authorities point out, a highly relevant matter to the “subject matter” is the amount of assets that are available to pay the claim before or after the judgment. In my opinion, a refusal to disclose the limits of coverage will have a tendency to harden the plaintiff in his determination to secure a final judgment and blind his eyes to compromise. It would seem that this would be true and especially when the more serious injuries are involved. *597He may, and many times will, require that the litigation reach-the point where he can pursue the disclosure interrogatory as to insurance. This aspect of the litigation, therefore, becomes a game, depending on the resolution of an issue collateral to the determination of liability issues. If the “subject matter” goes further than liability issues, it is difficult to see how anything could be more material than how much money is available to pay the judgment secured in the action.
5. Even before an action is filed or any issues as to liability are framed, a party litigant in our state under section 25-1267.08, R. R. S. 1943, relating to the perpetuation of testimony may, within the discretion of the court, secure any information pertinent to the “subject matter” of the expected action and his interest therein. That our perpetuation statute gives force to an interpretation of the interrogatory statute requiring this disclosure is supported by the following cases: Demaree v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. 2d 99, 73 P. 2d 605; Superior Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 2d 749, 235 P. 2d 833; Laddon v. Superior Court, 167 Cal. App. 2d 391, 334 P. 2d 638. We do not have a probable action here. We have a pending action. We are closer to the point of the necessity of discovery than we are in any action contemplated by the perpetuation statute. Information as to other issues may be frozen in writing to secure its existence for the future. Are assets of a defendant which are peculiarly designed to respond to this particular type of action and judgment any more sacrosanct? It would seem that this argument would have peculiar force in this situation because we are talking about a contract in which the defendant has designated the plaintiff as a beneficiary of the assets available to pay the very judgment contemplated in the action.
6. Besides the perpetuation statute, the provisions in our law permitting attachment and garnishment before trial under certain conditions and under the discretion of the court are consistent with and harmonious with *598the discretionary power of a court to compel the disclosure required by this interrogatory. Why should there be any halo of secrecy surrounding this particular portion of a defendant’s assets and especially so when he has designed and segregated the insurance contract to accomplish the very purpose for which disclosure is sought?
Our statute, section 25-1267.24, R. R. S. 1943, protects a defendant completely from an unwarranted or unjust disclosure. The court at any time may limit the scope and the manner of the taking of interrogatories. The defendant at any time has the right to a protective court order and, as the procedure in this case itself illustrates, he may even take an appeal to this court for an independent determination of whether there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
The majority opinion mentions the conflict of authority on this point. It seems to me that the recent cases and the weight of reason is strongly in favor of such dicovery as is contemplated by the interrogatory in this case. Johanek v. Aberle (1961), 27 F. R. D. 292; Hurt v. Cooper (1959), 175 F. Supp. 712; Brackett v. Woodall Food Products, Inc. (1954), 12 F. R. D. 4; Lucas v. District Court (1959), 140 Colo. 510, 345 P. 2d 1064; Laddon v. Superior Court (1959), 167 Cal. App. 2d 391, 334 P. 2d 638; People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 231, 145 N. E. 2d 588; Maddox v. Grauman (Ky. 1954), 265 S. W. 2d 939, 41 A. L. R. 2d 964; Roembke v. Wisdom (1958), 22 F. R. D. 197; Gallimore v. Dye (1958), 21 F. R. D. 283; McNelley v. Perry (1955), 18 F. R. D. 360; McClure v. Boeger (1952), 105 F. Supp. 612; Ruark v. Smith (1959), 51 Del. Super. 420, 147 A. 2d 514; Di Pietruntonio v. Superior Court (1958), 84 Ariz. 291, 327 P. 2d 746; Brooks v. Owens (Fla. 1957), 97 So. 2d 693; Jeppesen v. Swanson (1955), 243 Minn. 547, 68 N. W. 2d 649; Hill v. Greer (1961), 30 F. R. D. 64; Schwentner v. White (1961); 199 F. Supp. 710; Novak *599v. Good Will Grange No. 127, Patrons of Husbandry, Inc. (1961), 28 F. R. D. 394; Furumizo v. United States (1963), 33 F. R. D. 18. See, also, 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 646, p. 57.
I think our discovery statutes contemplate a change. They should not be construed so that they return us to the same place we were before. The Legislature intended that the courts move in the stream of progress of judicial administration. If it be true that the purpose of the discovery statutes is the disclosure of the truth, how can there be any haunting fears that this interrogatory will founder on the rocks of injustice and especially when the ship is guided by the protective and limiting hand of an impartial supervisory court? It cannot be doubted that this disclosure expedites the trial of a case and serves to dispose of litigation. The volume of personal injury automobile accident litigation burdening the courts is one of the primary problems present in modem judicial administration. The new discovery statutes were designed for and have done much to help this situation. This has been because' the parties are required to immediately spell out and disclose the whole truth before trial. This saves an incalculable amount of time and burdensome expense in the processes of justice. Proper safeguards are present at all times. The time has gone when we should worship the principle that a lawsuit is a gladiatorial game in which the person who is the winner is the one who has the wit to take maximum advantage of technicalitv, secrecy, surprise, and the failure to disclose the truth.
I am authorized to state that Judges Spencer and Boslaugh concur in this dissent.