Harris v. Drake

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a medical examination report prepared under personal injury protection coverage may be protected work product in later litigation with the tortfeasor. The court concluded that the protection did not terminate when the PIP dispute ended and that the insurer properly asserted the protection under the circumstances. The court also affirmed the denial of a continuance and the directed verdict on causation.

Holdings

1. A PIP insurer's independent medical examination and resulting report may be protected work product when obtained in anticipation of PIP litigation or arbitration, even though the later action is a tort suit against the tortfeasor.
2. Work-product protection does not terminate merely because the PIP litigation or arbitration for which the materials were prepared has ended.
3. USAA properly asserted work-product protection through its subrogation representative under the facts of the case.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Dr. Bede's testimony on work-product grounds or by denying Drake's request for a continuance.
5. The directed verdict for Harris on causation was proper because Drake presented no competent evidence or reasonable inference sufficient to make causation reasonably debatable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a medical examination and resulting reports obtained under a PIP insurance policy may qualify as work product in later litigation against the tortfeasor.
2. Whether work-product protection continues after resolution of the PIP dispute for which the materials were prepared.
3. Whether USAA properly asserted work-product protection through its representative in the tort litigation.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Dr. Bede's testimony and denying Drake's request for a continuance.
5. Whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for Harris on causation.

Disposition

affirmed