Cite as 326 Ark. 1073 (1996)
[4] Work product is not the same as a privilege which protects the sanctity of confidential communications. In discussing the attorney–client privilege and the work-product rule, this court has observed that "[t]he two rules and the principles upon which they are based, while susceptible to confusion, are separate and distinct." Arkansas Nat'l Bank v. Cleburne County Bank, 258 Ark. 329, 525 S.W.2d 82 (1975).
The discoverability of an insured's claim file under the work-product doctrine has been considered on many occasions by courts in other jurisdictions. However, Parker's argument does not address the basis for the trial court's ruling, and he consequently provides no discussion of the rulings in these cases. We could dispose of this point in his appeal on the basis that he has offered no authority or convincing argument on this issue, however there is a further reason for upholding the trial court's ruling in this instance. We have stated that a trial court has broad discretion in matters pertaining to discovery, and that discretion will not be second-guessed by the appellate court absent an abuse of discretion that is prejudicial to the appealing party. Wade v. Grace, 321 Ark. 482, 902 S.W.2d 785 (1995); Morris v. Cullipher, 306 Ark. 646, 816 S.W.2d 878 (1991).
[5] Here, the trial court found that Parker was not entitled to discover four pages out of a thirty-eight-page claim file. The four excluded pages provide in substance as follows:
- Page 16 – memo dated November 22, 1993. I had phone call with Streetman [Parker's attorney] on 11-18-93, forwarding dictated report. Since underwriting has determined insurance not in force, I am closing file.
- Page 15 – memo dated November 23, 1993. Streettnan does not have proof that Parker wrote check, however, he feels that he has a strong circumstantial case. Streetrnan states that Parker's check register shows that he wrote a premium check to Farm Bureau one week before expiration of the policy. Streetman asks us to reconsider, or he will litigate.
- Page 13 – memo dated May 11, 1994. I am enclosing under cover memo dated May 11, 1994, some evidence that Streetman feels is enough to win the case. I advised him that our position has not changed, Streetman indicated willingness to compromise.
