In Walter v. Travelers Personal Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72771 (M.D. Pa., May 22, 2013) (opinion by J. M.C. Carlson), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that "coverage counsel was, in fact, serving the client in an attorney-client capacity, and not in some other function such as a business advisor or claims adjuster." As a result, the court ruled that documents were properly withheld by an insurance company under the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine.
Posts tagged "work-product doctrine"
Subscribe To This Blog's Feed
- Supreme Court of PA Holds That an Increase in UIM Coverage Requires Auto Insurers to Offer Opportunity to Waive Stacking
- Are Your Employment Policies Ambiguous? Third Circuit Case is a Reminder of the Value of Clear Wording
- Third Circuit Takes a Deep Dive Into the "Four Corners" Rule and Whether Faulty Work Constitutes an "Occurrence" in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.
- Uncharted Territory of Medical Marijuana and Employment Law in Pennsylvania Demonstrated by Police Officer's Administrative Leave