The Court of Appeal was asked to resolve a discovery-related issue concerning lawyer-client privileges and work product theory. i State Of Missouri ex rel. Kilroy Was Here, LLC, et al. v. Honorable Joan L. Moriarty, District Judge, Twenty-Second Circuit Court Of Saint Louis Missour i, No. ED109351, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Writ Second Division (31 August 2021)
The underlying disputes are the latest episode in an unfortunate tale that began on April 28, 2012, when a large tent, which Kilroy Was Here had installed for its bars near Busch Stadium in central St. Louis, came moored during a storm that killed one and seriously injured seven others. After the victims sued for damages alleging that Kilroy was negligent in setting up and maintaining the tent, they offered to settle for $ 720,100 all claims against Kilroy and Kilroy's insurance company Starr Indemnity and Liability Company, which was defended through attorney Brian McBrearty.
Two days later, Kilroy, through a separate lawyer, demanded that Starr settle the claims for the amount offered by the underlying plaintiffs, which was within the political limits of $ 1 million, and announced that failure to do so would subject Starr to responsibility for bad faith refuses to settle. Starr retained attorney Keith Phoenix to advise Starr on its potential exposure to evil denial of residence.
On May 15, 2015, Starr announced, through Mr. Phoenix and for Kilroy, its rejection of the underlying plaintiffs. & # 39; settlement claim by making a counter-offer of $ 249,999.99. No agreement was finally reached.
Around the same time, Phoenix also became involved in the actual and legal issues that are going on in the case. For example, he drafted a legal memorandum summarizing his legal research on Kilroy's "duty to monitor the weather." 2016, judgment in favor of the underlying plaintiffs and against Kilroy with a total amount of $ 5.2 million. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in Martinez v. Kilroy Was Here LLC, 551 SW3d 491 (Mo. App. ED 2018).
The dispute is about a lawsuit tecum addressed to the law firm requesting "
The documents and testimonies requested by SPVG Bar Association can be explored to the extent that: (1) Phoenix acted outside the scope of his representation of Starr, who allegedly assessed Starr's exposure to his alleged bad faith refuses to settle; (2) Phoenix acted as de facto counsel together with McBrearty in Kilroy's defense against the underlying unlawful death and personal injury suit; (3) Phoenix participated in claims adjustment activities or acted as a claims adjuster; and (4) that all other exceptions to the attorney-client privilege apply as communications made in the presence of a third party.
The Parties may discover all matters, not privileged, relevant to the subject matter of the action in question.
Lawyer-client privileges and lawyer work.
Confidential communication between a lawyer and his client regarding the representation of the client is protected by the lawyer-client privilege. Privileged material is all professionally oriented communication between lawyer and client, regardless of whether it is done while waiting for disputes or for preparation for trial. To be privileged, communication must be made to ensure legal advice. Without exception, such privileged messages are immune to detection.
The person seeking discovery has the burden of determining the relevance of the coveted materials. If relevance has been established or is undisputed and the other party claims that a privilege precludes disclosure, the other party bears the burden of showing that the privilege applies.
Cover claims about work product are insufficient to invoke protection. In order to invoke product protection, the party objecting to the discovery ", by competent evidence, must establish that the material to be protected
- is a document or concrete thing,
- has been prepared pending litigation or trial, and  was prepared by or for a party or a representative of that party.
Exemption from the lawyer-client privilege.
Not all communication between lawyer and client is privileged. For example, it is generally accepted that where the lawyer acts as a collection agent, the communication between him and his client is not protected by the privilege. Year state ex rel. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wagner 575 SW3d 476, 483 (Mo. App. WD 2018), the Court recognized that when a “lawyer acted as an adjudicator, supervisor of claims processes or supervisory investigation, and not as a legal counsel, the lawyer-client privilege would not apply.
In addition, a party may not claim a lawyer-client privilege over communication when a third party representing a counterparty was present.
I State ex rel. Great American Insurance Co. v. Smith 574 S.W.2d 379, 386-87 (Mo. 1978). "[T] he decisive question [is] as to whether the relationship between lawyer and client existed between the parties at the time of the notice with reference to the subject matter of the notice."
The Subject Matter Of Phoenix & # 39 ;s Representation Of Starr Was Starr & # 39; s Bad Faith Exposure To Kilroy.
As Starr engaged SPvG to provide legal advice regarding Kilroy's potential malicious allegations against Starr, a review of the elements and nature of such a claim will help define the parameters and scope of SPvG's
upon refund is to determine the extent to which materials and substances are covered by the lawsuit together with Mr. Refusal to settle.
The critical point or points in time for an insurer's exposure to liability for the alleged malicious refusal to make amends is n the insurer had a chance to do so. On the limited record in front of us, the chance to settle on Starr's side seems to have occurred in April 2015.
In the situation where a third party sues an insurer's policyholder, it is the insurance company's control over the claim that creates a relationship of trust between insurer and insured. So Starr continued to provide and control the defense through McBrearty and retained his right to control conciliation negotiations and finally if conciliation took place. But now that Kilroy had informed Starr that Kilroy believed that Starr's failure to resolve established grounds for Kilroy to sue Starr for vicious refusal to settle in the event of a conviction, Kilroy and Starr, at least in this context, were now in the opposite posture.
On April 28, 2015, in clear recognition of this potential conflict, Starr retained Phoenix "to provide advice and counsel. . . in connection with accusations of bad faith refused to resolve the underlying mood. "Starr was able to continue to fulfill his contractual obligation to Kilroy to defend it in the underlying trial. And through Mr. Phoenix can get advice on its potential infidelity. However, the record shows that these two tracks converged.