Jeppesen v. Swanson
Decision Date | 11 February 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 36414,36414 |
Citation | 243 Minn. 547,68 N.W.2d 649 |
Parties | Einar J. JEPPESEN, Respondent, v. Gilbert SWANSON and Robert Gardner, Individually and d/b/a Swanson Excavating Company, Relators. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit discovery of the amount of insurance carried by a defendant in an action brought to recover damages alleged to have been suffered in an automobile accident for the sole purpose of evaluating such case in order to determine whether it should be settled.
Meagher Geer Markham & Anderson, O. C. Adamson II and David W. Nord, Minneapolis, for relators.
William H. DeParcq, Donald T. Barbeau, Minneapolis, O'Neill J. Grathwol, Excelsior, for respondents.
Wright W. Brooks, Minneapolis, amicus curiae.
This proceeding arises out of an action for personal injuries brought by plaintiff against defendants. The complaint alleges that an employee of defendants negligently drove a truck owned by defendants which struck plaintiff. Substantial personal injuries are claimed. Defendants interposed an answer admitting ownership of the truck and the relationship of employer but denied the occurrence of the alleged accident. The answer also contains an affirmative defense of contributory negligence and puts plaintiff to his proof as to damages.
After issue was thus joined, plaintiff, through his attorneys, moved the district court for an order permitting him to inspect the policy of liability insurance in effect on defendants' truck at the time of the alleged accident under Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This motion was accompanied by an affidavit of one of plaintiff's attorneys stating that, before plaintiff and his attorneys can properly evaluate a figure for settlement or trial, it is necessary that they know the policy limits on defendants' truck and that defendants have refused to give them this information. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion and ordered the production of the insurance policy.
The portion of the affidavit which states the reasons for the desired disclosure reads as follows:
'That before plaintiff and his attorneys can properly evaluate a figure for either settlement or trial that would properly dispose of this matter, it is necessary that the plaintiff be apprised of the policy limits in force and effect on defendant's motor vehicle at the time of the occurrence herein.'
On oral argument, counsel for plaintiff, with commendable frankness, admitted that the only purpose the information sought under this discovery could serve would be to assist plaintiff in evaluating his case for the purpose of settlement. Thus, the question is squarely presented to us whether disclosure may be had under Rule 34, as limited by Rule 26.02, of the amount of liability insurance carried by a defendant in a personal injury action for the sole purpose of assisting plaintiff in evaluating his case for the purpose of effecting a settlement.
The trial courts of this state are divided on the question. In order to establish uniformity among our courts, we issued our alternative writ of prohibition so that the matter could be expeditiously determined.
Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is identical with the federal rule. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. 1 It reads as follows:
The scope of the discovery permitted is the same as that provided by Rule 26.02 for taking depositions. 2 Rule 26.02 is identical with Federal Rule 26(b) except for the addition of the last sentence. 3 Rule 26.02 reads as follows:
At the outset we must bear in mind that the rules of civil procedure were adopted pursuant to authorization granted by the legislature. L.1947, c. 498. The enabling act itself prescribed the limits beyond which we may not go. The title of the act reads:
'An act authorizing the supreme court to regulate by rules the pleading, practice, and procedure in civil cases in all the courts of this state.'
Section 1 provides:
(Italics supplied.)
It is obvious that our power under this act is limited to the regulation of 'pleadings, practice, procedure, and the forms thereof in civil actions.'
Within the scope in which they operate, the rules should be given liberal construction so as to effectuate the purpose for which they were adopted. Rule 1 provides:
There are, however, and must be some boundary limitation beyond which we should not go. In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 392, 91 L.Ed. 451, 460, the United States Supreme Court said:
(Italics supplied.)
At the time these rules were adopted the discovery and pre-trial sections were most vigorously opposed by members of the bar, who feared that they would be abused. It is obvious from the divergent views of trial courts that these rules have been the most difficult to administer. In the Hickman case the court had before it a case involving an attempt to compel disclosure of the so-called 'work product' of an attorney. With respect to the scope of the discovery rule, the court said, 329 U.S. 500, 67 S.Ct. 388, 91 L.Ed. 457:
(Italics supplied.)
The question now before us is one of first impression in this court. There is not a great deal of authority elsewhere. It is apparent that our trial courts, as well as the federal trial courts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lucas v. District Court of Pueblo County in Tenth Judicial Dist., 18859
... ... Grauman, Ky., 265 S.W.2d 939, 41 A.L.R.2d 964; dissent in Jeppesen v. Swanson, 243 Minn. 547, 68 N.W.2d 649, 658), as far as the investigation and conduct of the defense is concerned, it would seem to be relevant, if ... ...
-
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Murray
...(1963); Sanders v. Ayrhart, 89 Idaho 302, 404 P.2d 589 (1965); Muck v. Claflin, 197 Kan. 594, 419 P.2d 1017 (1966); Jeppesen v. Swanson, 243 Minn. 547, 68 N.W.2d 649 (1955); State ex rel. Hersman v. District Court of Sixth Judicial Dist., 142 Mont. 139, 381 P.2d 799 (1963); State ex rel. Bu......
-
Wasmund v. Nunamaker
...remedy at law; or where, in rare instances, it will settle a rule of practice affecting all litigants. See, also, Jeppesen v. Swanson, 243 Minn. 547, 68 N.W.2d 649; Boldt v. Sanders, 261 Minn. 160, 111 N.W.2d In Brown v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 241 Minn. 15, 62 N.W.2d 688, 44 A.L.R.2d 535, t......
-
State ex rel. Bush v. Elliott
...of the cases so holding are: Cooper v. Stender, D.C.Tenn., 30 F.R.D. 389; McDaniel v. Mayle, D.C.Ohio, 30 F.R.D. 399; Jeppesen v. Swanson, 243 Minn. 547, 68 N.W.2d 649; McClure v. Boeger, D.C.Pa., 105 F.Supp. 612; McNelley v. Perry, D.C.Tenn., 18 F.R.D. 360; Gallimore v. Dye, D.C.Ill., 21 F......