Summary
holding in a UIM case that "[b]ecause the defendant's liability...depends upon the plaintiff's entitlement to as yet unliquidated damage elements...we believe bifurcation is appropriate."
Summary of this case from Shearer v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:00-CV-384-S.
March 22, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court for consideration of the motion of the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, to bifurcate and stay discovery with respect to the plain tiff's "bad faith" claim in this action seeking to recover underinsured motorist benefits.
The plaintiff has objected to bifurcation, noting that this case presents a contract claim with no other parties besides insured and insurer. The plaintiff suggests that under these circumstances no prejudice to the defendant is possible, presumably in contradistinction to instances in which a bad faith claim against an insurance company is joined with a tort claim asserted directly against the alleged tortfeasor.
In other first-party actions, the court has found bifurcation inappropriate. See Eric P. Tharpe v. Illinois National Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 3:00CV-498-S (____ F. Supp.2d ____ (2001), 2001 WL 252398).
However, on review, we think a somewhat different situation is presented here. In Tharpe, the only issues were whether the chiropractor's bill was reasonable, and if it was whether the insurer had a reasonable basis for denying full payment.
Here, the plaintiff claims underinsured motorist benefits. The claim is based upon the con tractual obligation in the insurance policy. However, the defendant's exposure as a supplemental insurer under the policy is a function of, and measured by, the verdict the plaintiff would be entitled to recover against the other motorist, Tewsley. Regardless of the facts of liability, the defendant's exposure to the plaintiff on the underinsured motorist claim is implicated only to the extent that the tortfeasor's liability coverage is insufficient. In this case, it appears that the plaintiff must therefore achieve a judgment in excess of $50,000 before the first dollar of underinsured motorist coverage would be available. While there does not appear to be a significant question regarding Tewsley's liability, given that he rear-ended the plaintiff while she was stopped in a line of traffic, there are many other factors which would be at issue in determining the value of the plaintiff's personal injury claim including, but not limited to, the carpal tunnel syndrome issue. Issues which could con ceivably be presented would include injuries claimed beyond carpal tunnel and the amount of pain and suffering, if any, the plaintiff endured.
Because the defendant's liability in this case therefore depends upon the plaintiff's entitlement to as yet unliquidated damage elements, unlike in Tharpe, we believe that bifurcation is appropriate.
Additionally, since discovery on the bad faith claim could arguably reveal the defendant's trial strategies aimed at containing the plaintiff's verdict to $50,000 or less, and thereby keeping it within Tewsley's liability coverage limit, we conclude that bifurcation of discovery is also appropriate.
For these reasons, the defendant's motions are GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that trial of the plaintiff's bad faith claim against the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is BIFURCATED from the plaintiff's contract underinsured motorist coverage damages claim. Further, discovery is also STAYED with respect to the plaintiff's bad faith claim. Discovery and trial regarding the bad faith claim will be subject to further order of the court.