[Download] "Frank D. Milone v. General Motors Corporation" by Supreme Court of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Frank D. Milone v. General Motors Corporation
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 13, 1981
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
Order modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: General Motors Corporation, defendant in this products liability action to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident which occurred on February 25, 1974, seeks the production of the claim file of the Travelers Insurance Company, plaintiffs insurer. Travelers defended plaintiff and settled negligence actions against him resulting from the same automobile accident. Additionally, plaintiff made a claim against Travelers for no-fault benefits, submitted medical reports and gave testimony in the course of no-fault arbitration. In its moving papers General Motors claims that the transcripts of testimony given by plaintiff at the arbitration hearings, the medical reports and "related materials" are material and necessary to its defense of the products liability action. Special Term denied defendants motion for an order directing discovery by oral examination and disclosure of the claim file. It accorded the conditional immunity of CPLR 3101 (subd [d], par 2) to these items as "[material] prepared for litigation" because the negligence and the products liability litigation arose out of the same incident. We disagree. It is clear that this material was not prepared by Travelers in the defense and settlement of claims made against the insurance which required Travelers to represent and defend plaintiff (cf. Kandel v Tocher, 22 A.D.2d 513). Nor was the material prepared in connection with any interest which may exist between Travelers and plaintiff in the products liability case. The transcripts of plaintiffs testimony at arbitration (Insurance Law, § 675) and the medical reports in question resulted from the adversarial nature of the relationship then existing between Travelers and plaintiff, and were the product of plaintiffs no-fault claim. They were not created by Travelers [84 A.D.2d 921 Page 922]