Sawyer v. Boufford, 6561

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
Citation312 A.2d 693,113 N.H. 627
Docket NumberNo. 6561,6561
PartiesMarie E. SAWYER, Executrix of the Estate of Carl R. Sawyer v. Francis L. BOUFFORD. Marie E. SAWYER v. Francis L. BOUFFORD.
Decision Date30 November 1973

Goodnow, Arwe & Ayer, Keene and McLane, Carleton, Graf, Greene & Brown, Manchester, for plaintiff.

Bell & Kennedy, Keene, for defendant.

LAMPRON, Justice.

Motion for discovery by deposition of the defendant in actions for personal injuries and the subsequent death of Carl R. Sawyer and for loss of consortium arising out of an automobile-pedestrian accident in Keene on January 20, 1969. Plaintiff moved that the defendant be ordered to produce at deposition documents relative to his net worth and to answer questions as to the extent to which he might have assets to reach in addition to his liability insurance policy which has been disclosed to have a limit of $25,000.00. Defendant's exception to the granting of the motion was reserved and transferred by Grant, J.

The issue, which is of first impression in this jurisdiction, is whether a defendant in a personal injury and wrongful death action must disclose his financial situation on deposition prior to trial in order to apprise the plaintiff of his ability to respond to a verdict in excess of his insurance coverage.

The underlying purpose of discovery, whether by means of depositions, interrogatories or pretrial hearings is to reach the truth and to reach it as early in the process as possible by narrowing the issues pertaining to the controversy between the parties. Hartford Accident, ect., Co. v. Cutter, 108 N.H. 112, 113, 229 A.2d 173, 175 (1967). Another important object of such procedures, especially in these days of crowded dockets, is to enhance the chances for a fair and amicable settlement. Id. Recent decisions of this court have stressed the importance of broad pretrial discovery. Willett v. General Elec. Co., 113 N.H. --, --, 306 A.2d 789, 790 (1973); Workman v. Public Serv. Co. of N.H., 113 N.H. --, --, 308 A.2d 540 (1973). However, there are competing policies which require imposing some limitations on discovery. Willett v. General Elec. Co., supra; McDuffey v. Boston & Maine R.R., 102 N.H. 179, 181, 152 A.2d 606, 608 (1959); M. Green, Basic Civil Procedure 124 (1972).

We have held in the domain of financial disclosures that federal income tax returns are not privileged as a matter of law when they are material to the claims of the parties. Currier v. Company, 101 N.H. 205, 137 A.2d 405 (1957). Discovery of records pertaining to bank accounts and other transactions has been held permissible when the financial resources of a party are an essential element in issue in the proceedings before the court. Calderwood v. Calderwood, 112 N.H. 355, 296 A.2d 910 (1972); Durocher's Ice Cream Co. v. Peirce Construction Co., 106 N.H. 293, 210 A.2d 477 (1965). RSA 498:2-a (Supp.1972) authorizes the superior court in its discretion to require disclosure of the limits of insurance coverage in a tort action for negligence if 'the court feels it would assist in the settlement of the case . . ..'

All of the above situations fall far short of the order in this case which comples the defendant to reveal his financial worth prior to an adjudication of his liability in a tort action in which his resources are not, and cannot be, an issue in the litigation. See Dziedzic v. Company, 82 N.H. 472, 136 A. 261 (1927); Hillman v. Penny, 29 F.R.D. 159, 161 (E.D.Tenn.1962). The disclosure of insurance coverage authorized by RSA 398:2-a (Supp.1972) is in conformity with the holding of this court that such policies are intended not only to protect the insured but also to afford proptection to those injured in an automobile accident. American Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chaput, 95 N.H. 200, 60 A.2d 118 (1948); see Gangemi v. Moor, 268 F.Supp. 19 (D.Del.1967). The insurance policy is a special asset abtained by the defendant for the particular purpose of indemnity against suits resulting from automobile accidents. Disclosure of its existence and limits would tend to adjust the plaintiff's settlement objective and to eliminate the risk to defendant's personal assets. Hence whatever invasion of privacy is involved is counterbalanced by the probable advantages resulting from disclosure. See Helms v. Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike Auth., 52 F.R.D. 530 (E.D.Va.1971); 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice, 26.01(18), at 26-44 (2d ed. 1970).

In the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Ballou
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 31 Julio 1984
  • State v. Valenzuela
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 31 Diciembre 1987
    ...upon the vitality of prior cases recognizing civil rights of action for violations of privacy interests. See Sawyer v. Boufford, 113 N.H. 627, 630, 312 A.2d 693, 695 (1973); Hamberger v. Eastman, 106 N.H. 107, 206 A.2d 239 On the Katz analysis, protection against unreasonable searches and s......
  • State v. Sands
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 29 Agosto 1983
    ...defendants also argue that they were entitled to read to the jury an excerpt from this court's decision in Sawyer v. Boufford, 113 N.H. 627, 629-30, 312 A.2d 693, 694-95 (1973), which stated that a defendant has a right, under some circumstances, not to disclose financial information in a c......
  • Calderwood v. Calderwood
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 31 Octubre 1974
    ...his obligation may then be determined solely with reference to what justice requires that Dorothy should receive. See Sawyer v. Boufford, 113 N.H. 627, 312 A.2d 693 (1973); Farnum v. Bristol-Myers Co., 107 N.H. 165, 167, 219 A.2d 277, 279 (1966); Hardware Mutual Cas. Co. v. Hopkins, 105 N.H......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT