Thanks, Howard, for featuring this weblog as an "interesting law blog of the day". Back in July, I had this to say about How Appealing: "Your blog not only has timely and powerful substance, it goes a long way toward making appellate litigation less inscrutable, thereby promoting open access to the courts through knowledge sharing." This statement is even more true today; Howard is due considerable credit for growth of the nourishing thicket. Keep up the good work!

What follows is a sample of the kind of briefing I try to deliver for those who follow WV court news, see it in context on the civil topics page. This particular issue has attracted some national attention -- the Defense Research Institute has filed an amicus brief in support of the insurers in one of the cases to be argued on March 26.

The Court is presently considering five writs of prohibition arising from four different lawsuits involving whether, in bad faith litigation, files containing communications between the insurer and counsel should be disclosed during discovery. The cases involve application of SER Allstate v. Gaughn and footnote 8 of Honaker v. Mahon to the determination of whether materials claimed to be privileged should be disclosed in discovery. The cases involve first-party and third-party bad faith claims.

The five cases, and their present stage, are:

1. SER Medical Assurance v. Recht, et al., No. 30840. Third-party bad faith action. Medical Assurance seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent ordered disclosure of file material by the Circuit Court of Ohio County. This case was argued and submitted for decision on January 14, 2003.
2. SER Brison v. Kaufman, et al., No. 31114. The underlying action is a first-party bad faith case. Petitioners in this action are attorneys whose communications to the insurer have been ordered to be disclosed by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, and seek to prohibit such disclosure. The litigation file documents reviewed by the lower court have been sealed pending review. This case is set for argument on Wednesday, March 26. The Defense Research Institute and the Defense Trial Counsel of West Virginia have both filed amicus briefs in support of the petitioners.
3. SER Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kaufman, No. 31115. This is a companion case to No. 31114, and arises from the same first-party bad fatih action below. Petitioners in this case are the insurance company who has been ordered to disclose portions of its llitigation file. Both of these cases are set for argument on March 26.
4. SER State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Steptoe, et al.,, No. 030381. This is a petition for writ of prohibition filed on March 4 by an insurer seeking to prevent the disclosure of documents in underlying first party bad faith litigation as required by an order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. By order of March 12, the Court deferred considering whether a rule to show cause should issue (4-1, McGraw would refuse), and further issued a stay of proceedings in the underlying action, including the ordered disclosure of the communications at issue. Petitioners had also requested that the Court consolidate this action with the other actions pending for argument on March 26. The Court refused the motion to consolidate.
5. SER Medical Assurance v. Bloom, et al., No. 030390. This is a petition for a writ of prohibition filed on March 6 by a defendant in a third-party bad faith action, seeking to prevent the ordered disclosure of documents it claims are protected by attorney-client privilege and work product. By order of March 12, the Court deferred considering whether a rule to show cause should issue (4-1, McGraw would refuse), and further issued a stay of proceedings in the underlying action, including the ordered disclosure of the communications at issue.