Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied Remington M. Prince’s motion to compel production of an insurer’s claim file in a declaratory judgment action concerning coverage obligations under a homeowners insurance policy. The court held that the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, including ordinary work product for which Prince could obtain a substantial equivalent without undue hardship. The court’s order was entered on December 30, 2025.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the requested claim-file materials fell within the permissible scope of discovery after Prince's counterclaims, including his bad-faith claim, had been dismissed.
- Whether the documents in Universal's claim file were protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine.
- Whether any ordinary work-product documents were otherwise discoverable because Prince had a substantial need for them and could not obtain their substantial equivalent without undue hardship.
Holdings
- After dismissal of Prince's counterclaims, discovery was limited to nonprivileged material relevant to the parties' remaining declaratory-judgment claims concerning interpretation and application of the policy's occurrence requirement and exclusions.
- Universal established that the identified claim-file documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and therefore need not be produced.
- The claim-file documents identified by the court were protected as either ordinary or opinion work product and did not have to be produced.
Key quotations
“Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a broad scope of discovery that includes any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case” (Section II)
“Opinion work product is “immune to the same extent as attorney-client privilege communication.”” (Section III.C)
“Because Universal has met its burden of establishing the applicability of the privileges and protections asserted in its privilege logs, the court concludes that none of the documents contained in the Claims File need to be produced.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Universal issued a homeowner's insurance policy to Remington M. Prince concerning property in South Carolina. After Prince allegedly injured Tyler Shuler during an incident at a boat landing, Shuler sued Prince in South Carolina state court, and Universal defended Prince under a reservation of rights. Universal filed this action seeking declarations that the incident was not an occurrence or that policy exclusions applied, while Prince sought discovery of Universal's claim file.
Procedural history
Universal filed a diversity action seeking a declaration that it owed Prince no duty to defend or indemnify him in an underlying personal-injury action brought by Tyler Shuler. Prince asserted counterclaims, including an insurance bad-faith claim, but the court dismissed those counterclaims and later denied reconsideration. Prince then sought production of Universal's claim file; following briefing and a hearing, the court ordered the file submitted for in camera inspection and denied the motion to compel.