In Fed. Court, Is A Defendant Still Required To Produce An Existing Ins. Policy Even If They Are Claiming They Are Self-Insured?
Defendant is a large national bank. In response to discovery request, they've identified having an insurance policy during the relevant time period, but object to producing the policy. Instead, they state that they are self-insured and "have more than adequate coverage for the purposes of this litigation." I'm sure the bank does have the assets to pay any judgment or settlement, however, my interest in seeing the entire policy has to do with other matters unrelated to coverage. Particularly, I'm interested in seeing if there are any additional insureds named in the policy that would be applicable to the lawsuit. Per FRCP 26(a)(1)(a)(iv), would I still be entitled to see the existing insurance policy even though Defendant is claiming sufficient self-insurance?