Page:Parker v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.pdf/2

---

---

deciding whether there has been an abuse of discretion in denying a discovery request; the goal of discovery is to permit a litigant to obtain whatever information he may need to prepare adequately for issues that may develop without imposing an onerous burden on his adversary.

1. DISCOVERY – PROTECTIVE ORDER PROPERLY GRANTED – NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOUND. – Where, during the course of discovery, appellee provided appellant with substantial information and material regarding the billing and notice procedures, and appellant did not request cancellation notices issued by appellee to other policyholders prior to filing his cause of action, and appellant did not show how notices sent after his lawsuit was filed would be relevant to his bad-faith claim, the supreme court could not say that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the protective order limiting discovery; a cause of action for bad faith must exist and be complete at the time such a lawsuit is filed; a motion for production of documents must be considered in the light of the particular circumstances which give rise to it and the need of the movant for the information requested.
2. DISCOVERY – WORK PRODUCT NOT EQUAL TO ATTORNEY–CLIENT PRIVILEGE. – Work product is not the same as a privilege that protects the sanctity of confidential communications; the attorney–client privilege and the work-product rule the principles upon which they are based, while susceptible to confusion, are separate and distinct.
3. DISCOVERY – TRIAL COURT HAS BROAD DISCRETION IN MATTERS RELATING TO DISCOVERY – NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOUND. – The trial court's ruling excluding certain portions of appellant's claim file under the work-product doctrine was upheld where appellant did not explain how these documents were pertinent to his claim of bad faith, nor did he argue that he was prejudiced by their exclusion; no abuse of discretion was shown; 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.
4. TORTS – INSURANCE COMPANIES – WHEN LIABILITY FOR BAD FAITH MAY BE INCURRED. – An insurance company may incur liability for the first-party tort of bad faith when it affirmatively engages in dishonest, malicious, or oppressive conduct in order to avoid a just obligation to its insured; the tort of bad faith requires affirmative misconduct, without a good-faith defense; the affirmative conduct must be dishonest, malicious, or oppressive in an attempt to avoid the insurer's liability under an insurance policy.
5. TORTS – BAD FAITH – AFFIRMATIVE MISCONDUCT MUST BE PRESENT FOR LIABILITY TO BE INCURRED. – The tort of bad faith cannot arise merely from the denial of a claim, without some affirmative misconduct; a cause of action must exist and be complete at the time the