Scontsas v. Citizens Ins. Co. of N. J.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1969
• Docket Number: No. 5860,5860
• Citation: 253 A.2d 831,109 N.H. 386
• Parties: John SCONTSAS et al. v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 831

253 A.2d 831

109 N.H. 386

John SCONTSAS et al. v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY.

No. 5860.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued March 5, 1969.

Decided June 3, 1969.

Leonard, Leonard & Prolman, Nashua, and McLane, Carleton, Graf, Greene & Brown and James R. Muirhead, Manchester, for plaintiffs.

Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green and E. Paul Kelly, Manchester, for defendant.

GRIMES, Justice.

This is an action in assumpsit to recover for the loss to two paintings, both by Leeteg, which were insured by the defendant.

The plaintiffs moved for discovery and at about the same time issued subpoenas to certain employees of the defendant to appear to give their depositions and to bring with them essentially the same documents which were requested in the motion for discovery. The Trial Court (Flynn, J.) granted the motion for discovery subject to defendant's exception but limited it to documents dated before the loss, and on motion of defendant stayed the taking of depositions pending appeal subject to plaintiffs' exception. All exceptions have been transferred.

The plaintiffs owned two paintings which were insured by the defendant, one for $95,000 and one for $55,000, under a valued policy first issued on September 25, 1964 for one year and reissued to cover the period to September 25, 1966. The plaintiffs allege that both paintings were stolen from their home on September 24, 1966.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by an affidavit. In a counter-affidavit, it appeared that the defense of misrepresentation and fraud as to the value of the paintings was being raised by the defendant, and it was also alleged that the policy was issued by the John G. Scontsas Insurance Agency. The plaintiffs waived the motion for summary judgment and filed the motion for discovery in question.

The motion for discovery makes fourteen separate requests including such items as the applications for the policy, correspondence, intracompany memoranda, reports and records relating to the credit and character of the plaintiffs, the value of the paintings, the request for coverage, the artist and his paintings, the decision to accept the risk, policies recommended, drawn up or issued to plaintiffs on the paintings, and all other documents in the original underwriting file relating to the policy in dispute and all reports and correspondence at the time of and after the loss relating to the loss, the prospects of recovery, value of the paintings and character of the plaintiffs.

The main contention of the defendant is that discovery is limited to matters relating to a party's own case and that inquiry into matters relating to the adverse party's case may not be permitted. See Reynolds v. Boston & Maine Transp. Company, 98 N.H. 251, 253, 98 A.2d 157, 37 A.L.R.2d 1149; Ingram v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 89 N.H. 277, 278-279, 197 A. 822; Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State, 107 N.H. 271, 278, 220 A.2d 751; Gibbs v. Prior, 107 N.H. 218, 222, 220 A.2d 151.

It has long been recognized that discovery is an important...