Melworm v. Encompass Indem. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 December 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08415,112 A.D.3d 794,977 N.Y.S.2d 321
• Parties: Michael MELWORM, et al., respondents, v. ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

112 A.D.3d 794
977 N.Y.S.2d 321
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08415

Michael MELWORM, et al., respondents,
v.
ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 18, 2013.

[977 N.Y.S.2d 322]

Feldman, Rudy, Kirby & Farquharson, P.C., Jericho, N.Y. (Brian R. Rudy of counsel), for appellants.

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Cader of counsel), for respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance policy, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), entered August 1, 2012, which, after an in camera review, granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to compel them to produce an unredacted copy of an electronic claims diary and certain letters from the defendants' counsel to the defendants.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants issued a policy insuring the plaintiffs' boat, and the plaintiffs made a claim under that policy asserting that the boat had been vandalized. The defendants denied the claim. The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of the insurance policy, and moved, among other things, to compel the defendants to produce an unredacted copy of an electronic claims diary prepared by an employee of the defendants, as well as certain letters from the defendants' counsel to the defendants. The material sought by the plaintiffs had been created prior to the defendants' denial of the claim, and the defendants' counsel drafted the letters while counsel conducted an investigation of the claim on behalf of the defendants. In opposition to the motion, the defendants argued that the material was protected by the attorney-client privilege ( seeCPLR 3101[a], [b]; 4503 [a] ). After conducting an in camera inspection, the Supreme Court granted the subject branch of the plaintiffs' motion. The defendants appeal.

CPLR 3101(a) broadly mandates “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” This provision is liberally interpreted in favor of disclosure ( see Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 952, 954, 683 N.Y.S.2d 156, 705 N.E.2d 1197; Allen v. Crowell–Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430; Ural v. Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 97 A.D.3d 562, 566, ...