DONALD L. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff, Pro-Se
vs.
Cause
No. 94-12,817
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
and ROBERT WILSON,
Defendants
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Pro-Se, Donald L. Thompson, and moves the Court pursuant to Rule 166b of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to compel Defendants to allow Discovery in accordance with the Requests of Plaintiff and as grounds therefore would show to the Court as follows:
I.
Interrogatories were requested of Defendant on 11-07-97, and again on 1-12-98. Both have been denied. Requests for Production were submitted to Defendants on 11-07-97, and again on 1-12-98. Both have been denied.
II.
Plaintiff has been denied all Discovery Requests to Defendants. Defendants could have granted some Discovery Requests on December 8, 1997 when Plaintiff was in Defendants office, but did not. Plaintiff has granted all requested forms of Discovery to Defendants and now must drive another 1200 miles or more if allowed Discovery.
WHEREFORE, for reasons set forth herein, and on attached statement, Plaintiff moves the Court to grant this Motion, and for the imposition of any sanction authorized by Rule 215(2b).
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________ Donald L. Thompson, Plaintiff, Pro-Se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served, pursuant to Rule 21a, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to Allstate Insurance Company and Robert Wilson, Defendants, at The Law Offices of Victor F. Poulos, P.C., 1520 Campbell Street, El Paso, Texas 79902, on this ________ day of March, 1998.
__________________________________
Donald L. Thompson, Plaintiff, Pro-Se
PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
I, Donald L. Thompson, Plaintiff, Pro-Se, attach this statement as mentioned in Motion to Compel Discovery.
As this Court knows, the Rules of Civil Procedure are meant to preclude litigation from becoming a battle of wits or perseverance (of which I as a lay person have no chance of winning) instead of providing a means for litigants of good faith to bring before the Court all of the facts from which the truth may be more easily ascertained and substantial justice done. The denial of discovery by Defendants is clearly a dilatory tactic intended to forestall and financially strap pro-se Plaintiff in an attempt to estop his legal rights to discover information pursuant to Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. It is inconceivable that the pro-se Plaintiff will not prevail as a matter of law. Therefore, the ill-conceived argument and denial of discovery being advanced by defendant's attorney on behalf of the defendants are frivolous legal claims which constitute a harassing and coercive tactic prohibited by law.
In this Bad Faith Action, Plaintiff wonders if Allstate Insurance Co. will ever recognize their obligation to weigh Insured's well-being against the well-being of their profit margins. All too often in the choice between well-being of Insureds and the financial well-being of their business, concealment is chosen over disclosure, and money over morality. Who are these people who knowingly and secretly decide to put Insureds at risk of financial destruction solely for the purpose of making profits and who believe that financial death of Insureds is an appropriate cost of their own prosperity.
With this in mind, Plaintiff would show as follows:
1. In this insurance bad faith case, the conduct of the defendant which is at issue has to do with matters such as the defendant's reasons for denying a claim, and the timeliness and reasonableness of its investigation or evaluation. Discovery of the information upon which the defendants based those decisions, including but not limited to the information in the claims file, is naturally suggested.
2. This case involves bad faith failure to settle and requires plaintiff to know the substance of the defendants investigation, the information available and used to make a decision, and the evaluations and advice relied upon to make that decision.
3. Since this is an insurance bad faith case, the predominant issue may be the manner in which the defendants conducted themselves during the course of dealing with the plaintiff. The best evidence concerning this issue may well be the claims files maintained by the defendants. Attorney-client, work product and other privilege claims are inapplicable to these files. The defendants entire course of conduct in connection with investigating and evaluating the claim may be "at issue", thereby removing any privilege that may have otherwise attached to attorney-client and other communications and information. Of primary concern is what the defendant knew at the time of the claim denial. Without the benefit of the records and files of the defendant, the plaintiff is left to attempt to recreate the investigation and decision-making process which led to the defendant's breach. Such a task would be unduly burdensome. Where the issue is one of the defendant's knowledge, it would seem that the defendant would have all the relevant information under its control. For this reason, the claim of privilege should be overcome.
4. As stated previously, the insurer (defendant) owes a duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insured (plaintiff) which did not cease to exist at the moment litigation between defendant and plaintiff commenced. Thus, evidence of activities and procedures employed during litigation should be discoverable. Acts of bad faith committed after the original act of bad faith should be allowed as evidence to support the bad faith cause of action.
5. That insurance industry customs or standards are evidence of good or bad faith, even though such customs or standards are not conclusive. Plaintiff would like to ascertain not only general industry standards germane to the case, but also the standards and customs of the defendant and its affiliates (i.e. claims manuals, etc.).
6. That discovery regarding defendants prior conduct, such as previous civil litigation that pertain to bad faith claims and court decisions finding it liable for bad faith, statutory violations, or punitive damages, should be made available to uncover evidence of the defendants need for deterrence and the plaintiffs need to uncover evidence of defendants repetitiveness and frequency of the type of conduct at issue. When a party has been involved in previous similar litigation, courts have ruled that information regarding that litigation should be discoverable. Previous similar acts by an insurer can be used to prove the requisite intent for a bad faith claim.
7. That subject to applicable ethical guidelines, files of ex-employees of insurer may contain useful information since their testimony may be more candid than that of current employees.
8. That training manuals, company policy memoranda, claims manuals, guidelines and other similar documents "may well lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial as to the defendants' course of dealing, course of performance, and other trade practices". And finally, that the identification of corporate officers, directors, and other information relative to the makeup of defendants organizational hierarchy is discoverable since there is a claim of a policy which permitted bad faith or unfair dealing.
Most people buy insurance to protect against some catastrophic event. People who have not had frequent dealings with insurance companies assume that, "They're in Good Hands", or a "Good Neighbor" will deliver a "Piece of The Rock" to them if they buy their insurance. Little do they know! Perhaps there is no other "industry" in this country in which the economic purpose for being in business (to make a profit) comes into greater conflict with the stated purpose of the industry's existence (to indemnify or pay individuals who have suffered a loss) than the Insurance Industry. The Plaintiff is one of the very few checks and balances that remains against the Defendant in this case, and the Defendant is working hard to eliminate this "irritant" to its "bottom line".
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________ Donald L. Thompson, Plaintiff, Pro-Se
If you entered this page from a search engine or another link, Click Here, to enter our site.
©1998-2000 Page Designed by: Don Thompson
