Martino v. Barnett, 31270.
Decision Date | 15 March 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 31270.,31270. |
Citation | 595 S.E.2d 65,215 W.Va. 123 |
Parties | Frank S. MARTINO, Plaintiff Below, v. Betty J. BARNETT; Sean M. Swiger; Jerry Boyce and Colleen Boyce, Husband and Wife; Horace Mann Insurance Company, a Foreign Insurance Company; Edgar Bruce Garner, an Individual; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, a Foreign Insurance Company; and Rodney Stewart, an Individual, Defendants Below. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
David J. Romano, Michael J. Romano, Romano Law Offices, Clarksburg, for Frank S. Martino.
E. Kay Fuller, Walter M. Jones, III, Martin & Seibert, L.C., Martinsburg, for the defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.
Sandra M. Murphy, Amy J. Tawney, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, P.L.L.C., Charleston, for Amici Curiae, West Virginia Bankers Association and American Bankers Association.
This matter involves three certified questions from the Circuit Court of Harrison County regarding whether applicable state and federal privacy laws allow dissemination of confidential customer information by an insurance company to an unaffiliated third party during the adjustment or litigation of an insurance claim.1 After completing our examination of the record, briefs2 and arguments presented in light of the applicable law, we conclude that nonpublic personal information may be subject to release pursuant to judicial process.
The certified questions arise from a civil action in which Frank Martino, plaintiff below, alleges he was injured in an automobile accident on November 18, 1999, due to the negligence of, among others, Betty Jean Barnett, one of the defendants below. Ms. Barnett is insured by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Nationwide"). Before filing the civil complaint, Mr. Martino asked Nationwide to supply Ms. Barnett's home address so that he could attempt service of the summons and complaint. Nationwide refused to disclose the home address of Ms. Barnett, claiming that to do so would violate the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley-Act (hereinafter referred to as "GLBA" or "Act")3 and the West Virginia Insurance Commission's Privacy Rule (hereinafter referred to as "Privacy Rule").4 Nationwide based its refusal to supply Ms. Barnett's address on the belief that, under these federal and state authorities, insurance companies are considered financial institutions which are prohibited from disclosing "nonpublic personal information" of its customers.
Upon filing suit in the circuit court, Mr. Martino continued his efforts to acquire Ms. Barnett's home address from Nationwide. Mr. Martino notified Nationwide of his intent to depose a Nationwide representative in order to obtain certain factual information about Ms. Barnett, including her address, so that service of process could proceed. Nationwide responded by filing a motion for a protective order to enjoin the deposition. The motion was the subject of a hearing held by the lower court on February 13, 2002, at which both parties agreed the issues the GLBA and Privacy Rule raised regarding disclosure of customer information were proper to certify to this Court. At a subsequent hearing on August 26, 2002, the actual questions were formulated, and by order dated December 6, 2002, the lower court certified those questions to this Court pursuant to West Virginia Code § 58-5-2 (1998) (Supp.2003). Upon finding the issues so certified contained questions of law necessary to the decision in the pending case, were sufficiently precise and were based on an undisputed factual record,5 we agreed to accept the certified questions by order entered on April 10, 2003.
This Court's review of the certified questions presented is plenary as Syl. Pt. 2, Keplinger v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co., 208 W.Va. 11, 537 S.E.2d 632 (2000).
The December 6, 2002, order of the circuit court sets forth the following legal questions and corresponding responses of the lower court:
In developing its response to the first two questions, the lower court noted in its order that the GLBA expressly allows disclosure of personal information to The court then reasoned that the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure are the type of state rules contemplated by the GLBA and the comparable provisions of the Privacy Rule. Thus, the lower court concluded, information discoverable under the Rules of Civil Procedure is excepted from the GLBA and the Privacy Rule. Moreover, the court below observed a limited purpose or intent for the privacy provisions finding that "the legislative history of the GLBA indicates that the Act was passed in order to prohibit the sharing of nonpublic personal information between financial institutions and non-affiliated third parties for marketing purposes" (footnote omitted).
Syl. Pt. 3, Kincaid v. Mangum, 189 W.Va. 404, 432 S.E.2d 74 (1993). Accordingly, we exercise our discretion by combining the first two questions presented by the court below into the following single question:
Do the exceptions to the privacy provisions of the GLBA and the West Virginia Privacy Rule allow, attendant to judicial involvement, dissemination by an insurance company to a claimant or a claimant's representative of nonpublic personal information obtained from an insured? Subject to the limitations set forth in the discussion of this question, we answer the question in the affirmative.
Turning to the pertinent legal authorities, we first note that the GLBA was signed into law in November of 1999 with the overall purpose of enhancing Landry v. Union Planters Corp., 2003 WL 21355462, *3 (E.D.La. June 6, 2003). The privacy provisions at issue in this case are contained in Title V of the Act,6 in which Congress expressed the following privacy obligation policy:
Pub. L. No. 106-102, § 501, 113 Stat. 1338. In furtherance of this purpose, the GLBA sets forth a procedure whereby financial institutions falling within the purview of the Act may not disclose nonpublic personal information without first notifying its clients of the financial institution's disclosure policies and affording them the opportunity to bar any disclosure of such information by "opting out." See 15 U.S.C. § 6802(a) and (b). However, the GLBA provides exceptions to its notification and opt-out procedures, including when it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bedell
...such principles of nondisclosure as attorney-client privilege and work product immunity.” Syl. pt. 3, in part, Martino v. Barnett, 215 W.Va. 123, 595 S.E.2d 65 (2004). Thus, a protective order “cannot and should not at once be used as a shield and a sword.” Fritsch, 187 F.R.D. at 626 (inter......
-
Capital One Services, Inc. v. Page, 2005-IA-00153-SCT.
...Group, Inc., 218 F.R.D. 492, 496 (S.D.W.Va.2003); Ex parte Nat'l W. Life Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 218, 226 (Ala.2004); Martino v. Barnett, 215 W.Va. 123, 595 S.E.2d 65, 72 (2004). One basis for this view is articulated in Martino, 595 S.E.2d at 71: The legislative history indicates that the Hous......
-
Lee v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, Llp
...of the statute. Whether this phrase includes civil discovery is not definitively resolved, as discussed in Martino v. Barnett, 215 W.Va. 123, 595 S.E.2d 65, 70-72 (2004). ...
-
Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. State Atty. Gen.
...request. Marks, 218 F.R.D. at 495-96. ¶ 37 The West Virginia Supreme Court adopted the District Court's reasoning in Martino v. Barnett, 215 W.Va. 123, 595 S.E.2d 65 (2004). It held that there was "no basis for limiting the effect of the exception to discovery as no such limitation to appli......
-
The Gramm-leach-bliley Act: Five Years After Implementation, Does the Emperor Wear Clothes?
...3700232. 123. Id. at *8. 124. 218 F.R.D. 492 (S.D. W.Va. 2003). 125. 2003 WL 1193571 (E.D. La. 2003 Mar. 12, 2003) (not reported). 126. 595 S.E.2d 65 (W.D. Va. 2004). 127. Marks v. Global Mortgage Group, Inc., 218 F.R.D. 492, 495-96 (S.D. W.Va. 2003); Union Planters Bank, N.A. v. Gavel, 200......