COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

All Councilmembers

� Chairman Phil Mendelson � ;:!IP'­Chairman, Committee on �� November 29 , 2012

'"-') SUBJECT: Report on Bill 19-890, "Pre-litigation Discovery of Insurance. Coverage ,

Amendment Act of 2012"

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which Bill 19-890, the "Pre-litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Amendment Act of 2012" was referred, reports favorably thereon. \Yith amendments, and recommends approval by the Council.

.. '

CONTENTS

I. Background and N eed ................................................................ .1 II. Legislative Chronology ............................................................... 5 III. Position of the Executive ............................................................. 6 IV. Comments of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions ............... 6 V. Summary of Testimony ............................................................... 6 VI. Impact on Existing Law ............................................................. .7 VII. Fiscal Impact ............................................................................... .7 VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis ...................................................... .7 IX. Committee Action ........................................................................ 8

X. Attachments .................................................................................. 9

I. BAC KGROUND A ND NEED

\ . ,

Bill 19-890, the "Pre-litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Amendment Act of 2012" allows a claimant to obtain basic insurance coverage information from a potential defendant's insurer without having to file suit. Specifically, a claimant in a vehicle accident (including bicyclists) would be entitled to insurer documentation that denotes the applicable coverage limits for which the insurer may be liable to satisfy all or parts of a claim or to indemnify or reimburse another party for payments made to satisfy the claim. Currently, a claimant is privy to this information through the discovery process, but this requires an individual first to file a lawsuit. Instead, Bill 19 -890 enables a claimant to gain this information pre-litigation, providing each side with a more level playing field, facilitating settlements, and reducing burdens on the courts.

Co mmittee on the Judiciary Repor t on Bill 19-890

Nove mber 29, 20 1 2 Page 2 of 9

Beginning in 1 970 , the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allowed for the disclosure of "any insurance agree ment under which an insurance business may be liable to satis fy all or part of a possible judg ment in the action or to inde mni fy or rei mburse for pay ments made to satis fy the judg ment " during the discovery process. I Prior to this , courts di ffered on whe ther this infor mation shou ld be subject to discovery. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clari fied that disclosure was favored .2 As the Advisory Co mmittee Notes to the Federal Rules indicate , disclosure allows each side to deter mine the actual value of the case and enables each side to negotiate a fair set tle ment --essentially disclosure levels the playing field. 3

More recently, 16 jurisdictions , including Maryland , Virginia , and West Virginia , have gone one step further and adopted laws re quiring insurers to disclose coverage li mits prior to litigation. 4 The theory behind these state laws is si milar to the idea behind the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure : disclosure of the li mits pre -litigation advances "fairness and transparency in the negotiation process. "s While coverage li mits infor mation is available after an individual has filed suit , the individual re mains at a disadvantage during any negotiation or settle ment

discussions that occur prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Extending the practice to pre -litigation situations eradicates this disadvantage . Additionally , pre -litigation disclosure will also lead to se ttle ments without ever having to involve the courts, thereby reducing the a mount of litigation and court congestion. 6 Given the advantages to pre -litigation disclosure , as well as the growing nu mber of states that conte mplate such disclosure , it only ma kes sense for the District also to allow individuals to gain coverage li mitation infor mation without pursuing litigation.

Changes under Bill 19-890:

The essence of Bill 1 9-890 is that it allows insurers to provide coverage li mits to clai mants after the clai mant has sub mitted to the insurer a written clai m and the re quired docu mentation as enu merated in the bill. Additionally , if an individual is killed in a car accident , Bill 1 9-890 allows his or her estate or bene ficiary to re quest coverage li mits fro m an insurer as long as the estate or bene ficiary has provided the insurer with the necessary docu ments as outlined in the b ill. These provisions o f the leg isl at ion did not ch ange between the in troduced version and the Co mmi ttee Print .

1 See FED. R. ClY. P. 26(a) and advisory committee's note on 1970 amendments. 2 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a) advisory committee's note on 1970 amendments. 3ld 4 CONN GEN. STAT. § 38a-335a (2012); FLA. STAT. ANN. § 627.4137 (LexisNexis 2012); GA. CODE ANN. § 33-3-28 (2012); 215 ILL. COMPo STAT. ANN. 51143.24b (LexisNexis 2012); ME. REV. STAT. tit. 24-A, § 2164-E (2012); MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. §§ 10-1 10 Ito -1104 (LexisNexis 2012); MASS. ANN. LAWS ch. 175, § 112C; MINN. STAT. § 72A. 201 (2012); NEV. REv . STAT. ANN. § 690B.042 (LexisNexis 2012); N.Y. INS. LAW § 3420 (Consol. 2012); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 58-3-33 (2012); R.I. GEN. LAWS § 27-7-5 (2012); S.C. CODE ANN. § 38-77-250 (2011); VT. STAT. ANN. Tit. 23, § 941 (2012); VA. CODE ANN. § 8.01-417 (2012); W. VA. CODE ANN. § 33-6F-2 (2012) 5 See Bill 19-890, Pre-litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Act of 201 2: Hearing before the Council of the

District of Columbia Comm. on the Judiciary 3 (Oct. 12, 2012) (written statement of James W. Taglieri, Legislative Chair, The Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C.). 61d

Commi ttee on the Judiciary Report on Bill 1 9-890

November 29, 201 2 Page 3 of 9

However , two changes were made to the Commit tee Print based on commen ts and concerns raised at the Committee 's Oc tober 1 2th he aring on the bill . Firs t, at the District of Columbia Insurance Federation 's (DC IF) re ques t, the Com mittee Print speci fies tha t disclosure of coverage limits and applicable documents does no t cons ti tu te an admission tha t a particular claim is subjec t to the insurance agreemen t be tween the insurer and alleged tortfeasor. Addi tionally , the Committee Prin t clari fies tha t release of the documen ts does not consti tu te a waiver of any term or condi tion of the applicable agreement be tween the insurer a nd alleged tortfeasor a nd does no t consti tu te the waiver of any righ t, including any potential defense tha t the

insurer may assert if the case were to go to tr ial. The in troduced version simply indica ted tha t disclosure of documentation under the bill did no t cons titute an ad mission tha t alleged da mage or injury was subjec t to the policy. At the hearing , DC IF re ques ted the change in order to main tain consistency be tween jurisdic tions 7 a nd to ensure tha t release of such docu men ts would no t open insurers open to po ten tial evidentiary issues should the case proceed to trial.

Second , DC IF suggested tha t a clause be added to Bill 1 9-890 to indica te tha t insurers , as well as their employees a nd agents , will not be civilly or criminally liable for disclosing any of the infor mation as re quired by the bill. As noted at the Commi ttee 's October 1 2th hearing , insurance compa nies are concerned that if they divulge personal informa tion , such as coverage limits , they could be held liable for violating an individual 's privacy. s Adding this provision to the Co mmi ttee Prin t addresses insurers ' concerns and ensures that insurers will no t be liable for viola ting any privacy laws solely because they release infor mation as re quired by Bill 19-890 .

In addition to these two changes , witnesses a t the Co mmi ttee 's Oc tober 1 2th hearing also sugges ted the following : (I) establishment of a t hreshold limit ; and ( 2) re quiring tha t o nly an attorney may re ques t, on behalf of his or her clien t, coverage limi ta tion information from a n insurer. 9 The Commi ttee rejec ts these changes for the reasons se t forth below. With regard to the es tablis hmen t of a threshold limit , advocates for the limi t argue tha t i t is necessary to re quire that an individual 's total cla im amount be at or above a certain dollar amoun t before the indiv idual is allowed to u til ize the p rov is ions se t fo rth in Bill 1 9-890 in order to pr even t frivolous

lawsuits , 1O and that a threshold limit will ensure consistency amon� jurisdic tions because Ma ryland a nd Virginia both have t hreshold limi ts of $12 , 500 or more. 1 However , of the 16 states tha t re quire pre -li tigation disclosure , Maryland and Virginia a re the o nly two tha t re quire a threshold . Thus , frivolousness does not seem to be a real problem , and cons is tency argues

7 Bill 19-890, Pre-litigation Discovery a/Insurance Coverage Act 0/2012: Hearing be/ore the Council a/ the District a/Columbia Comm. on the Judiciary 2-3 (Oct. 12, 2012) (written statement of Wayne McOwen, Executive Director, District of Columbia Insurance Federation) [hereinafter McOwen 10.12.12 Statement] 8 Bill 19-890, Pre-litigation Discovery 0/ Insurance Coverage Act 0/2012: Hearing be/ore the Council 0/ the District a/Columbia Comm. on the Judiciary (Oct. 12, 2012) (oral testimony of Lars Kristiansen, Nationwide Insurance). 9 McOwen 10.12.21 Statement, supra note 7, at 3. 10 Letter from Micaela A. Isler, Assistant Vice President, Prop. Cas. Insurers Ass 'n of Am., to Phil Mendelson, Chainnan, Comm. on the Judiciary (Oct. 26, 2012) (attached to this report). 11 MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 10-1103 (LexisNexis 2012); VA. CODE ANN. § 8.01-417 (2012).

Co mmittee on the Judiciary Report on Bill 1 9-890

Nove mber 29, 20 12 Page 4 o f9

against a threshold. Additionally , as opponents o f the threshold reasoned , se tting a t hreshold li mitation will most li kely not a ffect the nu mber o f frivolous clai ms , for an individual can still obtai n cove rage li mitations through the discovery p rocess after filing a lawsuit. 12 Establishing a threshold li mit fo t pre -litigation only delays , not avoids, the inevitable in such a case. Further , just because an individual does not have an injury or da mage that may result in a total clai m

e qual to o r g reater than a certain a mou nt does not mean that the individual 's in ju ry or da mage is any less signi ficant o r that the individual is any less entitled to a more fai r negotiation and set tle ment process. Fo r these reasons, the Co mmi ttee chooses not to include a threshold li mit in Bill 1 9-890.

The Co mmi ttee also chooses not to li mit the e fficiencies o f Bill 1 9-890 to attorneys. Speci fically, witnesses at the October 1 2th hearing re quested that the Co mmi ttee li mit the p re ­litigation disclosure re quest abili ty to atto rneys only. 13 Acco rding to the testi mony , li miting the ability to at to rneys would reduce the nu mber o f re quests and di minish the nu mbe r o f i mprope r or insu fficient re quests received by insu rers.14 The Co mmi ttee believes li miting the abili ty to attorneys, albeit on behal f o f thei r clients , goes against the pre mise o f Bill 1 9-890 . The public policy should be that clai mants have a right to obtain cove rage li mitation in for mation be fore filing a lawsuit. The public policy is not furthe red by li miting it to at torneys. An individual may

want to evaluate the li mits to deter mine whethe r he o r she wants to even hire an a ttorney to move forward with se ttle ment o r the filing o f a lawsuit. Additionally, so me individuals cannot a ffo rd

to hire counsel and may wish to negotiate with an insurer without an attorney. If the ability to ma ke the re quest were li mited to at to rneys, so me clai mants would still be on an uneven playing field , lac king in for mation that they may need to create a more fair and even negotiation and se ttle ment process . Notably, only two states -South Carolina and West Virginia -li mit the p re ­litigation disclosure process to at to rneys. 15 Of the other 14, five states speci fically allo w either a clai mant or his or he r attorney to see k in for mation p re -litigation, while the rest e xplicitly indicate that the clai mant must re quest the in for mation . 16 Given this , the Co mmittee believes that it is in the best interest o f justice not to li mit Bill 1 9-890 to attorneys, and to allow all individuals the

ability to obtain coverage li mitation in for mation prior to litigation.

Finally , the Co mmittee Print cla ri fies that the phrase "vehicle accident " includes accidents involv ing bicyclists. This was not included in the introduced ve rsion o f the bill, but given that bicyclist sa fety, as well as bicyclists ' access to justice, has been a continuing conce rn

12 Letter from the Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., to Phil Mendelson, Chairman, District of Columbia Council, (Oct. 26, 2012) (attached to this report). 13 McOwen 10.12.12 Statement, supra note 7, at 3. 14Id " S.C. CODE ANN. § 38-77-250 (2011); W. VA. CODE ANN. § 33-6F-2 (2012). 16 Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada allow either a claimant or his or her attorney to seek the information. Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia all require a claimant to request the information from insurers if prior to litigation. See supra note 4 for citations to the applicable statutes.

Co mmit tee on the Judiciary Repor t on Bill 1 9-890

Nove mber 29, 20 12 Page 5 of 9

of this Co mmit tee , 17 inclusion of accidents involving bicyclists in Bill 1 9-890 only makes sense. In recent years , the District has seen grow th in bicycle usage throughout the city. This has

brought along with it more collisions between motorists a nd bicycles. With the increasing nu mber of collisions a nd injuries , it is i mpor ta nt that bicyclists have the sa me access to justice , as well as the sa me ability to negotiate and to p articipate in more infor med settle ment a gree ments when dealing with a motorist 's insurer , as he or she would have ifhe or she was driving a motor vehicle when involved in a collision. A bicyclist 's injuries or da mages are no less i mpor ta nt or signi fica nt than those incurred by a driver . In fact , they are generally more serious. Thus , Bill 1 9-890 ensures that bicyclists will also be entitled to the disclosure of coverage li mitation infor mation prior to litigation.

Access to justice enco mpasses the right of individuals to an e qual and level negotia tion and set tle ment process . Bill 1 9-890 provides this. Without disclosure of coverage li mitation infor mation pre -litigation, clai mants operate in the da rk, without any idea as to whe ther the set tle ment they are being offered is fair . To create more e quality and to provide tra nsparency a nd fairness to the negotiation and settle ment process , bo th sides need full access to infor mation that may in fluence the process. As Bill 19-890 does just that, the Co mmi ttee reco mmends adoption of the bill .

July 10 , 2 01 2

July 20 , 201 2

II. LEGI SLATIVE CHRONOLOGY

Bill 1 9-890, "Pre -litigation Discovery Insura nce Coverage Act of 201 2 , " is in troduced by Chair ma n Mendelson , and is referred to the Co mmit tee on the Judiciary .

Notice of Intent to Act on Bill 1 9-890 is published in the District of Columbia Register.

July 27, 201 2 Notice o f a Public Hearing on Bill 1 9-890 is published in the District of Columbia Register.

October 1 2 , 2 0 12 The Co mmittee on the Judiciary holds a public hearing on Bill 19-890 .

Nove mber 29, 201 2 The Co mmittee on the Judiciary marks -up Bill 1 9-890 .

I7 The Committee has held three oversight hearing5--{)n February 4, 20 II , November 2, 2011, and May 30, 2012-on this topic over the past two years.

Co mmit tee on the Judiciary Re por t on Bill 1 9-890

III. PO SITION O F THE EXECUTIVE

November 29,201 2 Page 6 of 9

William P. White , Co mmissioner of the De pa rtment of Insu ra nce , Secu rities and Banking testi fied on behalf of the Executive in su pport of Bill 1 9-890 , noting that neighboring jurisdictions , including Ma ryland , Virgi nia , a nd West Virgi nia , have statutes sim ila r to Bill 1 9-890. The Executive did , however , suggest cha nges to the bill , so that the bill will mir ror more

closely neighbo ring jurisdictions . The Commit tee Print does not include some of these changes for reasons discussed on pages 3-4 of this re por t.

IV. COMMENT S O F ADVI SORY NEIGH BORHOOD COMMI S SION S

The Commi ttee received no testimony or co mments from any Advisory Neighborhood Com mission on Bill 1 9-890.

V. SUMMARY O F TE S TIMONY

The Committee on the Judiciary held a public hearing on Bill 1 9-890 on Friday , October 1 2, 201 2. The testimony summa ri zed below is from that hearing . A co py of this testimony is attached to this re po rt .

Wayne McOwen, Executive Director, District of Columbia Insurance Federation, testified regarding several changes that DC rF believes should be made to the bill in order to ensure consistency with neighboring jurisdictions .

Lars Kristiansen, Nationwide, testi fied in su pport of the in clusion of a $1 2 ,5 00 t hreshold limit , which would limit only those individuals whose total medical bills and wage losses e qualed or e xceeded that amou nt to be able to obtain insurance coverage information from insurers .

James W. Taglieri, Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington D.C, testi fied in su ppor t of Bill 1 9-890. Mr. Taglieri testi fied that re quiring the insurer to produce insurance coverage information prior to the commencement of litigation will promote quicker , more efficient set tlements and w ill encourage e quali ty and trans parency in t he negotiation process .

William P. White, Commissioner, Department .of Insurance, Securities and Banking, testified. His co mments are su mmari zed under Section III.

Additional comments and letters were received by the Commit tee reg arding this bill . They a re attache d to this re port .

Committee on the Judiciary Report on Bill 19-890

November 29 , 2012 Page 7 of9

VI. IM PACT ON EXI S TING LAW

Bill 19-890 amends the Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of 1982 , effective September 18,1982 (D.C. Law 4- 155; D.C. Official Code § 31-2401 et seq.) by adding a new section that requires insurers to provide claimants with the applicable coverage limits prior to the claimant filing a lawsuit. Currently claimants are only able to obtain this information after they have filed a lawsuit, which hinders a claimant's ability to negotiate fairly with an insurer during any settlement discussions that occur prior to litigation. Bill 19 -890 delineates the documentation that a claimant must provide in order to obtain the coverage limits, indicates that an insurer has 30 days to respond to a request, ensures that disclosure by the insurer does not constitute a waiver of certain rights held by the insurer, and specifies that an insurer cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for complying with this bill. Additionally, any information disclosed pursuant to Bill 19-890 is inadmissible as evidence if litigation occurs. Further, this bill enables bicyclists, as well as motor vehicle drivers, the ability to obtain the coverage limits.

VII. FI S CAL IM PACT

The attached November 20, 2012 Fiscal Impact Statement from the Chief Financial Officer states that funds are sufficient to implement Bill 19-890.

Section I

Section 2

Subsection (a)

Subsection (b)

VIII. SECTION-BY- SECTION ANALY SI S

States the short title of Bill 19-890.

Amends the Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of 1982 (D.C. Law 4- 155; D.C. Official Code § 3 1- 2401 et seq.) by adding a new section, which states the following:

Indicates that after an insurer has received a written claim for damages or reimbursement arising out of a vehicle accident and received the documentation required by subsection (b) or (d) of this section, an insurer shall release to the claimant the applicable coverage limits under which an insurer may be responsible for satisfying all or part of a claim or liable for indemnifying or reimbursing payment made to fulfill a claim.

Outlines the documentation that a claimant needs to provide to an insurer in order to obtain the applicable coverage limits.

Committee on the Judiciary Report on Bill 19 -890

November 29 , 2012 Page 8 of9

Subsection (c)

Subsection (d)

Subsection (e)

Subsection (f)

Subsection (g)

Subsection (h)

Section 3

Section 4

Describes the documentation that an individual's estate or a beneficiary of the deceased, whose death resulted from a vehicle accident, must provide in order to acquire the applicable policy's coverage limits.

Mandates that an insurer has 30 days to divulge the applicable coverage limits after it has received the documentation put forth in subsections (b) or (c).

Specifies that the disclosure of materials as required by this bill does not constitute an admission that a claim is subject to the applicable agreement between the insured and the tortfeasor. Further, disclosing the applicable coverage limits or other documents required by the bill is not a waiver of any term or condition of the applicable agreement between the insurer and the alleged tortfeasor or a waiver of any right of the insurer, including the insurer's right to assert a particular defense during litigation. This differs and is broader than the introduced version of Bill 19-890.

Prevents an individual from holding an insurer, its agents, or its employees civilly or criminally liable for releasing documents as required by this bill. This immunity was not included in the introduced version of the bill.

States that disclosing information as required by this bill does not make the information admissible as evidence at trial.

Notes that for the purposes of Section 2 of this bill, the term "vehicle accident" includes accidents involving bicyclists. This subsection was not included in the introduced version.

Adopts the Fiscal Impact Statement.

Establishes the effective date by stating the standard 30- day Congressional review language.

IX. COMMITTEE ACTION

On November 29 , 2012 , the Committee met to consider Bill 19 -890, the "Pre- litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Amendment Act of2012 . " The meeting was called to order at 12 :24 p. m. , and Bill 19-890 was the tenth item on the agenda. After ascertaining a quorum (Chairman Mendelson and Councilmembers Bowser, Cheh, and Evans present), Chairman Mendelson moved the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. During discussion, Councilmember Evans expressed concern over the lack of a threshold amount. Chairman Mendelson responded that 14 of 1 6 states have no threshold, and thus, the

Committee on the Judiciary Report on Bill 1 9-890

Novembe r 29, 20 1 2 Page 9 of 9

C Olnmittee Print follows the public policy of a majo rity of the states that allow p re -litigation disclosu re . Councilmembe r Bowse r stated that she believed this bill could lead to highe r settlement and the refo re highe r rates fo r Dist rict residents . Additionally , she indicated that an alte rnative view e xisted with reg ard to the th reshold issue and cautioned moving . fo rwa rd legislation that would cause insu rance rates to rise. Chai rman Mendelson replied that rates would not inc rease, as the info rmation sought is cu rrently available th rough discove ry once an individual files a lawsuit . Bill 19-890 allows the info rmation to be available without filing a lawsuit and will possibly lead to mo re settlements , which a re mo re e xpensive than settlements . Afte r discussion, the vote on the p rint was unanimous (Chai rman Mendelson and Councilmembe rs Bowse r, Cheh , and Evans voting yes ). Chai rman Mendelson then moved the repo rt with leave fo r sta ff to make technical , edito rial , and confo rming changes . Afte r an

opportunity fo r discussion , the vote on the repo rt was unanimous (Chai rman Mendelson and Councilmembe rs Bowse r, Cheh , and Evans voting yes ) . The meeting adjo urned at 1 : 21 p .m .

X. ATTAC HMENT S

1 . Bill 1 9-890 as int roduced .

2 . Written testimony and comments .

3 . Fiscal Impact Statement

4 . Committee Print fo r Bill 1 9-890 .

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 Memorandum

From:

Date:

Subject:

Nyasha Smith, Secretary to the Co cil

July 13,2012

Referral of Proposed Legislation

Notice is given that the attached proposed legislation was introduced in the Legislative Meeting on Tuesday, July 10,2012. Copies are available in Room 10, the Legislative Services Division.

TITLE: "Pre-litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Act of2012", B19-0890

INTRODUCED BY: Chairman Mendelson

The Chairman is referring this legislation to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Attachment

cc: General Counsel Budget Director Legislative Services

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

A BILL

�'/L-.v Chairman Phil Mendelson

15 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 16 17 18 19 20 Chairman Mendelson introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee 21 on __________________________ __

22 23 To require pre-litigation disclosure of any insurance agreement under which certain 24 persons may be liable to satisfy all or part of the claim or to indemnify or 25 reimburse for payments made to satisfy the claim by insurance companies in order 26 to facilitate settlements and to reduce the amount of litigation in the Superior 27 Court of the District of Columbia. 28 29 BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

30 That this act may be cited as the "Pre-litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Act of

31 2012".

32 Sec. 2. Prelitigation Discovery of Insurance

33 (a) After a claimant makes a written claim for compensation or damages

34 concerning a vehicle accident, and provides the documents described in subsection (b) or

35 (d) of this section to an insurer, the claimant may obtain from the insurer documentation

36 of the applicable limits of coverage in any insurance agreement under which the insurer

37 may be liable to:

(1) Satisfy all or part of the claim; or

2 (2) Indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the claim.

3 (b) In order for a claimant to obtain the prescribed documentation in subsection

4 (a) from the insurer, the claimant must provide the following, in writing, to the insurer:

5 (1) The date of the vehicle accident;

6 (2) The name and last known address of the alleged tortfeasor;

7 (3) A copy of the vehicle accident report, if any;

8 (4) The insurer's claim number, if available;

9 (5) The claimant's health care bills and documentation of the claimant's

10 loss of income, if any, resulting from the vehicle accident; and

11 (6) The records of health care treatment for the claimant's injuries caused

12 by the vehicle accident.

13 (c) The insurer shall respond in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the

14 request and shall disclose the limits of liability, at the time of the accident, of policies,

15 regardless of whether the insurer contests the applicability of the policy to the injured

16 person's claim.

17 (d) If the claim is brought by the estate of an individual or a beneficiary of the

18 individual, whose death resulted from a vehicle accident, the insurer must provide the

19 documentation described in subsection (a) of this section if the claimant provides the

20 following, in writing, to the insurer:

21 (1) The date of the vehicle accident;

22 (2) The name and last known address of the alleged tortfeasor;

23 (3) A copy of the vehicle accident report, if any;

2

1 (4) The insurer's claim number, if available;

2 (5) A copy of the decedent's death certificate issued in the District of

3 Columbia or another jurisdiction;

4 (6) A copy of the letters of administration issued to appoint the personal

5 representative of the decedent's estate in the District of Columbia or a substantially

6 similar document issued by another jurisdiction;

7 (7) The name of each beneficiary of the decedent, if known;

8 (8) The relationship to the decedent of each known beneficiary of the

9 decedent;

10 (9) The health care bills for health care treatment, if any, of the decedent

11 resulting from the vehicle accident; and

12 (10) The records of health care treatment for injuries to the decedent

13 caused by the vehicle accident.

14 (e) After receipt of the documents described in subsection (d) of this section, the

15 insurer shall respond in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the request and shall

16 disclose the limits of liability, at the time of the accident, of all policies, regardless of

17 whether the insurer contests the applicability of the policy to the claim.

18 (f) Disclosure of the policy limits under this section shall not constitute an

19 admission that the alleged injury or damage is subject to the policy.

20 (g) Information concerning the insurance policy is not, by reason of disclosure

2 I pursuant to this section, admissible as evidence at trial.

22 Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement.

23 The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the

3

D),tric' ,l CQlijml>la insurance F ed.ration

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INSURANCE FEDERA nON

P.O. Box 34757 Washington DC 20043

e-mail: '.\.�lll'O"cna dcif.org Tel: 202.797.0757

Testimony of

District of Columbia Insurance Federation

Before the

DC Council Committee on the Judiciary

12 October 2012

Bill 19-890

"Pre-litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Act of 2012"

P.O. Box 34757 * Wasbington, DC 20043 * pb 202.797.fJ757

Good morning Chairperson Mendelson and members of the Committee on the

Judiciary. My name is Wayne E. McOwen. I represent the District of Columbia

Insurance Federation (DCIF), a state insurance trade association whose members

provide property, casualty, life and health insurance products and services in the

District of Columbia. On behalf of the DCIF, I offer the following remarks with

regard to Bill 19-890, the "Pre-litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Act of

2012."

First, I would like to point to the advantages of uniform, or near uniform,

legislation among jurisdictions and, in particular, among contiguous jurisdictions.

Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia have recently enacted legislation for the

purpose of requiring certain insurers to disclose to certain claimants under

certain circumstances certain limits of coverage. We encourage the committee to

consider modifications to the current draft which will enable insurers to handle

similar situations among jurisdictions seamlessly, more efficiently, and still

achieve the outcomes sought by proponents of this initiative.

The DCIF will provide copies of the aforementioned legislation, but here are

specific changes we suggest be entertained by the Committee to enable

consistency and, hence, greater efficiency of the system without compromising

the stated objective:

• Disclosure of the required documentation does not constitute .•.

o An admission that a claim is subject to the applicable agreement

between the insurer and the alleged tortfeasor; or

o A waiver of any term or condition of the applicable agreement

between the insurer and the alleged tortfeasor or any right of the

insurer, including any potential defense concerning coverage or

liability

• An insurer, and the employees and agents of an insurer, may not be civilly

or criminally liable for the disclosure of documentation required

• The total of all medical bills and wage losses must equal or exceed $12,500

• Applicability of the pre-litigation requirement should be limited to

requesting attorneys, which will . . .

o Cut down on the sheer number of requests; and

o Significantly reduce or eliminate the number of improper or

insufficient (due to lack of required information) requests that come

to insurers, thus eliminating opportunity for delayed responses

We respectfully encourage the Committee to consider the above changes for the

sake of efficiency and with no impediment to achieving the stated objective.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on this issue. I look forward

to your questions.

Trial lawyers Association Of Metropolitan Washington. DC

TRIAL LAWYERS AsSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, D.C. 1919M_NW, S-3SO, W�OClOO36

(282) 659-35321 fax (2112) 775-_ 1 dctrianawyers@tla-<lc.org 1 www.tla-<lc.org

THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY Phil Mendelson, Chair

Public Hearing on: Pre-Litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Act of 2012

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2012

Testimony of James W. Taglieri on behalf of The Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C.

Chairman Mendelson and members of the Committee on the Judiciary,

my name is James W. Taglieri and I am testifying in support of The Pre-Litigation

Discovery of Insurance Coverage Act of 2012, on behalf of the Trial Lawyers

Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C.

Since 1980 Superior Court Civil Rule 26(b)(2) has provided that:

A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. Information concerning the insurance agreement is not by reason of discloslJre admissible in evidence at trial. For purposes of this paragraph, an application for insurance shall not be treated as part of an insurance agreement.

From 1970 until 1993 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 was similar. In 1993

an amendment to the federal rule required that such an insurance agreement be

produced • . .. without awaiting a discovery request..:

TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, D.C. October 12, 2012

Page 20f4

The standard rule has always been that the existence of insurance could not be

proved at trial. This is the law in D,C, and is inadmissible under Federal Rule of

Evidence 611,

Until the enactment of Federal Rule 26 there was a dispute regarding the

discovery of the existence of insurance during litigation, The issue was whether the

existence and extent of insurance could be seen as "",relevant to the subject matter

involved in the pending action," Courts which permitted the discovery of insurance

coverage gave the following rationales: (1) collectibility of a judgment is a highly

relevant matter especially in jurisdictions ( like the District ) where there are financial

responsibility laws requiring insurance; (2) ultimately a plaintiff would be entitled to this

information once a judgment was entered; and (3) knowledge of the existence and

extent of insurance will lead to a more realistic appraisal of a case and lead to more

settlements,

stated:

The Advisory Committee Note for the 1970 amendment of the Federal Rule

Disclosure of insurance coverage will enable counsel for both sides to make the same realistic appraisal of the case, so that settlement and litigation strategy are based on knowledge and not speculation, It will con­duce to settlement and avoid protracted litigation in some cases, though in others it may have the opposite effect. 1

The rationale for requiring the production of the existence and extent of an

insurance agreement pre-suit is even more compelling where the information is

sought pre-suit.

I See Section 2010 of Federal Practice and Procedure, Wright & Miller for a fuller discussion of the history and rationale for Federal Rule 26 (a)(I)(D)

TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, D.C. l October 12. 2012

Page 30f4

First, the information is available once a lawsuit is filed. If counsel for plaintiff

requires this information in order to fully advise the client about settlement, counsel will

just file suit in order to obtain the information.

Second, the filing of lawsuits merely to obtain this information is burdensome to

the Court system.

Third, providing this information pre-suit will result in a better ability for plaintiffs

to evaluate their cases and will promote settlement. Making it easier to settle cases

pre-suit will avoid the cost of filing lawsuits and assist in lessening the congestion of the

Court system.

Fourth, disclosure will increase fairness and transparency in the negotiation

process. Carriers will not negotiate unless they see and evaluate whatever

documentation supports a claim. It is only fair, that a claimant be able to see what

insurance coverage is available in order to evaluate settlement prospects.

Fifth, disclosure will allow for earlier notification of an underinsured or uninsured

carrier. This will also assist in resolution and help to avoid unnecessary court filings.

Sixth, disclosure will allow for better co-ordination of benefits with other carriers

as well as with health carriers and medical providers.

Seventh, counsel will be able to negotiate subrogation claims earlier.

Both Maryland and Virginia have statutes which allow for pre-litigation disclosure

of insurance information. Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 10-1102,

et seq. Of the Maryland Code allows a claimant to obtain applicable limits of insurance

coverage pre-suit. Sections 10-1103 and 10-1104 spell out the information which a

TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, D.C. October 12,2012

Page 40f4

claimant must provide once suit is filed in order to be entitled to this insurance

information. I have attached a copy of the Maryland statutory provisions hereto.

Section 8.01-417 of the Annotated Code of Virginia similarly permits a claimant to

obtain insurance coverage information pre-suit once certain information is supplied to

the carrier. A copy of the Virginia statute is attached hereto.

In summary, it was determined long ago that the existence and extent of

insurance coverage must be disclosed once a lawsuit is filed. There is no logical basis

for withholding this information until suit is filed. The sooner it is disclosed the sooner

the parties can engage in full and fair negotiations. Once disclosed, settlements will

occur earlier and lawsuits will be less necessary, thereby saving the parties and the

Court much expense and time.

K� �� IJv! Karen Evans 7 Jack H. Olender & Associates President

es Nathanson egislative Counsel

James Taglieri Cadeaux, Taglieri & Not Legislative Chair

HEARING ON

HILL 19-X90

PRE-LITIGATION DISCOVERY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE ACT OF

21H2

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

PHIL MENDELSON, CHAIRMAN

***

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM P. WHITE

COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,

SECURITIES AND BANKING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ROOM 412

WILSON BUILDING

OCTOBER 12,2012

12:30 P.M.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson and memhers of the Committee on

the Judiciary. I am William P. White, Commissioner of the Department of

Insurance, Securities and Banking ("Department") to present testimony on Bill 19-

X90, the "Pre-Litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Act of 2012" CBill").

This Bill requires insurers to provide pre-litigation disclosure of any insurance

coverage which may apply to either party in a vehicle accident.

This Bill continues a trend of similar legislative developments in

neighboring, and other, jurisdictions. The Executive helieves it is judicious of the

Council to consider enacting legislation of this type so that insurance consumers

and insurers throughout metropolitan area are subject to substantially similar

standards of disclosure regardless of where the vehicle accident occurs.

As introduced, the Bill differs in several ways from similar legislation

recently enacted in other jurisdictions, and the Executive looks forward to working

with the Committee and Staff to refine the existing legislative language to address

as many of the technical differences the Committee deems appropriate to achieve

the Bill's underlying policy intent. The Department will be happy to work through

with Committee Staff to achieve as much multi-jurisdictional harmony as possible.

1

I will identify a few examples ()f these differences here and note a few

technical isslies later in this testimony. To start, I w()uld like to draw the

Committee's attention to the one place where the Bill, as introduced, differs most

substantially from other jurisdictions. The Maryland and Virginia comparison

legislation is codified along with related cOlllt and judicial proceeding laws- as an

extension of the judicial process. [n this respect, Maryland for example, requires a

claimant to have filed a tort action in order to trigger the sort of pre-litigation

discovery information in question. Further, by including pre-litigation discovery

requirements along with other laws pertaining to judicial proceedings, Maryland,

Virginia, West Virginia and other jurisdictions clearly contemplate the judiciary

having the authority to enforce the pre-litigation discovery requirements. As

currently drafted, the Bill is silent on the issue of enforcement. As written DISH

would have no clear authority or mechanism to enforce the bill's requirements. As

[ am certain you will understand, I cannot speak as to how any other department or

agency might enforce the legislation.

The other jurisdictions also establish some mll11mUm threshold requiring

claimants, however defined, to show a level of commitment to pursue a claim.

West Virginia, for example, requires the pre-litigation request to come from an

attorney for the claimant, not an unrepresented potential claimant. While DISH

would have no authority to enforce this legislation, speaking generally, any agency

2

entrusted with enforcement would henefit from some clear threshold criteria that

would weed out truly frivolous requests and redlll:e enforcement efforts.

Ultimately, I helieve the Bill's intent is to reduce litigation, not simply shift the

judicial case load from initiation of civil claim actions to initiation of enforcement

actions.

I want to also make two technical observations. First, several key terms

such as "claimant" and "insurer" are not defined in the bill as introduced. Defining

such terms would provide further clarity to the legislation making it easier to

administer and enforce by whichever governmental body that is ultimately charged

with enforcement. Second, as the Committee considers where best to codify this

legislation, the Committee should be aware that DC Official Code Section 31-

2413(a) (7) currently provides that insurance information must be produced upon

demand by a law enforcement officer. Further, 18 DCMR Section 80004 currently

provides that a person may obtain the name of an insurance company and policy

number connected to a particular vehicle from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

I respectfully request that the Council consider the information and concerns

shared here as the Council and the Executive continue to be in the forefront of

protecting District residents.

3

This \.:ondudes my testimony today. and [ am available to answer any

questions that the Committee may have.

4

r. 111, :;Ullt. 11, ;l.,(!l.-t. Afllll)!I, '.10 l�f3;� JllO PHO f. 10, �liht. " , :�"f<J 'to ,'"110'

\Vt'st's Annotated Code of MarY\;lI11l

Courts ;lnd .JlIdiciall'r<Jt'I�t�dings

Tille 10, Evidenl't!

Suhtitle t 1. Prl'liti�ation DiscOVl'ry

MD Code, Courts and .1'1<licial Pro<.eedings, T. Hl, Subt. 11, Refs & Anno. ( �t1lTl'ntnt·Ss

,vlD Code, Courts and ludicialProccedings, T. 10, Sub!. II, Refs & Anno., MD CTS & IUD PRO T. 10, Sub!. 11, Refs &

Annos

The statutes and Constitution are Clirrent through all chapters of the 20 t 2 Regular Session and the First and Secund Special

Sc!ssions of the General Assembly.

,) 1 0-1101. 'htlnitll1n�. �J10 CT3 '� JUO PRO � 10-11 r)1

Wt'st'!'J Annotated {'\HIe IIf Maryland

Courts and ,Jlldidal Pnl('t'etlin�s

Title 10. Evidence (Refs & Annos)

S11htitle 11. pfI'litigation Discovery (Refs & ,\nnos)

MD Code, Courts and .Judicial Proceedings, § to-1101

§ LC}-IIOI. DefInitions

Currentnt!SS

In general

<a) In this subtille the tollowing words have the meanings indicated.

Beneficiary

(b) "Beneficiary" means an individual who may bring an action for wrongful death under Title 3, Subtitle 9 of this article.

Claimant

(c) "Claimant" means:

(I) A person who alleges damages as a result of a vehicle accident or an attorney who represents the person; or

(2) A personal representative of the estate of a decedent who died as a result of a vehicle accident or an attorney who represents

the personal representative of the I!state of the decedent.

Insurer

(d) "Insurer" includes a property and casualty insurer, a self-insurance plan, or any person required to provide indemnification

fOT a claim for wrongful death, personal injury, or property damage.

Vehicle

(e) "Vehicle" has the meaning stated in § 11-176 of the Transportation Article.

Credits Added by Acts 2011, c. 76, § I, elI Oct. 1,2011; Acts 2011, c. 77, § I, etI Oct. 1,2011.

MD Code, Courts and ludicial Proceedings. § 10-1101. MD CTS & JUD PRO § 10-1101 The statutes and Constitution are current through all chapters of the 2012 Regular Session and the First and Second Special

Sessions of th. General Assembly.

I' 'hi of Dl)fUJllt·llt

i 10·1102. Oocl1lnOnt:ltion r�l;ltiIlfJ to limit" I)f r.oVnrl'l9, ,'110 GT"l.\ JUD PRO � 10·1102

\Vt�st's Annotated Code of MaryiaIHl

Cl)urts anti.Judicial Pr()(:t�edin�s

Title to. Evidence (Refs & Anl1os)

Subtitle It. Prelitigation Dis(;overy (Refs &. Annos)

M 0 Code, Courts and ,Iudicial Proceedings, § lO-lto'l

� 10-1102. Documentation ['elating to limits of cov�r:lge

Cllrrentness

Aner a claimant tiles a written tort claim concerning a vehicle accident and provides the documentation described in § I ()-11 ()] or § 10-1 104 of this subtitle to an insurer, the claimant may obtain from the insurer documentation of the applicable limits of

coverage in any insurance agreement under which the insurer may be liable to:

(I) Salisi)' all or part of the claim; or

(2) (ndemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the claim.

Credits Added by Acts 2011, c. 76. § I, elf. Oct. 1.2011; Acts 2011. c. 77. § I. eff. Oct. 1.2011.

MD Code, Courts and ludicial Proceedings, § 10-1102, MD CTS & JUD PRO § 10-1102

The statutes and Constitution are current through all chaplers of the 2012 Regular Session and the First and Second Special

Sessions of the General Assembly.

i 1 0·1103. DQcUlnontJllon providod 10 d.lirn,lIlls, . ..,,0 C rs ,If. .JUO PRO � 10.1 1 03

West's Annotated Code of Maryland

Courts and .h1didal Pr()('I�{'tlin�s

Title 10. Evidenee (Ilefs & Annos)

SlIbtith, I I . Pr"liti�ation Discovery (Refs 11< Annos)

MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 10-1 10:1

§ 10-l I0:1. Dm'.umentalion provided to claimants

Currentness

Application of sectlon

(a) This section does not apply to a claim described under * 1 0- 1 1 04 of this subtitle.

Information provided by claimant

(b) A claimant may obtain Ihe documentation described in § 1 0- 1 1 02 of this subtitle if the claimant provides in writing to the

insurer:

( I ) The date of the vehicle accident;

(2) The name and last known address of the alleged tortfeasor;

(3) A copy of the vehicle accident report. if available;

(4) The insurers claim number, if available;

(5) The claimant's health care bills and documentation of the claimant's loss of income, if any, resulting from the vehicle

accident; and

(6) The records of health care treatment for the claimant's injuries caused by the vehicle accident.

lIealth care bills and loss of income documented by claimant

(c) [f the amount of the health care bills and loss of income documented by the claimant under this section is at least $12,500,

the insurer shaH disclose in writing the applicable limits of coverage in each written agreement under which the insurer may

be liable.

Credits

Added by Acts 20 1 1, c. 76, § I, etf. Oct. I, 20 I I ; Acts 20 I I . c. 77, § I, eff. Oct. I , 20 I I .

MD Code, Courts and ludicial Proceedings, § 10- 1103, MD CTS & IUD PRO § 10-1103

The statutes and Constitution are current through all chapters of the 2012 Regular Session and the First and Second Special

Sessions of the General Assembly.

, ,

� 1 0.1 1 04. Doctlmnntation providfld to 'I�tata ,)r bOfllJfici;lry . . . , .1�10 C r'S ,\ JUO PRO ...

West', Annotated Code of Maryland COUlts and .Judicial PrOl�eedin�s

Title 10. Evidence (Refs & AnnosJ

Subtitle 11. i'relitigation Dis"overy (Ret:. lie Annos)

MD Code. Courts and Judicial Proceedings. § 10-1104

§ 10-1 104. Do('umentation provided to estate Of henefidary of individuals

Currentness

Sectlon applicable to claim. by e.tato or bononci.ry or doco.sed individual

(aJ This section applies to a claim by the estate of an individual or a beneficiary of the individual resulting from the death of

the individual in a vehicle accident.

Inrorm.tloD provided by claimant

(b) A claimant may obtain the documentation described in § 1 0-1 1 02 of this subtitle if the claimant provides in writing to the

insurer:

(I) The date of the vehicle accident;

(2) The name and last known address ofthe alleged tortfeasor;

(3) A copy of the vehicle accident report, if available;

(4) The insurer's claim number, if available;

(5) A copy of the decedent's death certificate issued in the State or another jurisdiction;

(6) A copy of the letters of administration issued to appoint the personal representative of the decedent's estate in the State

or a substantially similar document issued by another jurisdiction;

(7) The name of each beneficiary of the decedent, if known;

(8) The relationship to the decedent of each known beneficiary of the decedent;

(9) The amount of economic damages, if any, claimed by each known beneficiary of the decedent, including any amount

claimed based on future loss of earnings of the decedent;

( 1 0) The health care bills for health care treatment, ifany, of the decedent resulting from the vehicle accident;

(I I ) The records of health care treatment tor injuries to the decedent caused by the vehicle accident; and

( 1 2) Documentation of the decedent's past loss of income, if any, resulting from the vehicle accident.

Cre�its Added by Acts 201 l , c. 76, § l , etf. Oct. l , 20 1 1 ; Acts 20 1 1 , c. 77, § l , eff. Oct. l , 20 1 1 .

MD Code, Courts and Iudicial Proceedings, § 10-1 104, MD crs & IUD PRO § 10- 1 1 04

The statutes and Constitution are current through all chapters of lhe 2012 Regular Session and the First and Second Special

Sessions of the General Assembly.

'} to-1 1 04. OOCUlOtUlt..Hlnfl providllrl to t'�t.lte or ht)n'tfit:i.IIY .. . , ,',10 (;T<) � JIJO PRO . . .

' · · , 1 1 1 - 0 ' ' ' d I "".,'! . \ , I "

i 1 0 · 1 1 05. Fnrrn Inri prncodllnl (or dl�dOSIl(f1, ',.10 c rs .l(" JUD PHD 'i 1 0-1 1 05

\Vt>st's Annotatt·cl Code of Maryland

('Olllts and .hulil'ial PrC)('(�cdin�s

Title 10. Evident'. ( l{cfs & Annos)

Suhtitle t t , l'rt·litigation Dis('()vpry (Refs & ,\nnns)

MD Code, Courts and .Iudicial Proceedings, § 10-\105

·i 10- 1 10 ,1) , Form and procedure for disclosure

(�lIlTentness

I)ocumentation in writing

(a) An insurer shall provide in writing the documentation described under * 1 0- 1 1 02 of this subtitle within 30 days arter the

date of a request in accordance with § I C)-I I OJ or § I f)- I I 04 of this subtitle, regardless of whether the insurer contests the

applicability of coverage to a claim.

Liability for disclosure

(b) An insurer, and the I!mployees and agents of an insurer, may not be civilly or criminally liable for the disclosure of

documentation required under this subtitle.

Disclosure not admission or waiver

(c) Disclosure of the documentation under this subtitle does not constitute:

( I ) An admission that a claim is subject to the applicable agreement between the insurer and the alleged tortfeasor; or

(2) A waiver of any term or condition of the applicable agreement between the insurer and the alleged tortfeasor or any right

of the insurer, including any potential defense concerning' coverage or liability.

Admissibility of documentation as evidence

(d) Documentation disclosed under this subtitle is not admissible as evidence at trial by reason of its disclosure under this subtitle.

Credits

Added by Acts 2011. c. 76. § I . elf. Oct. 1. 2011; Acts 201 1 , c. 77. § I . elf. Oct. 1 , 2011.

MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 10-1 1 05. MD CTS & JUD PRO § 10-1 105

The statutes and Constitution are current through all chapters of the 2012 Regular Session and the First and Second Special

Sessions of the General Assembly.

!-" nd !lf J)nfunH'lIt

§ 8.01-417. Copies of written statements or transcriptions of .•.• VA ST § 8.01-417

West's Annotated Code of Virginia

Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure (Refs & Annos)

Chapter 14. Evidence (Refs & Annos)

Article 9. Miscellaneous Provisions

VA Code Ann. § 8.01-417

§ 8.01-417. Copies of written statements or transcriptions of verbal statements by injured person to be delivered

to him; copies of subpoenaed documents to be provided to other party; disclosure of insurance policy limits

Currentness

A. Any person who takes from a person who has sustained a personal injury a signed written statement or voice recording of

any statement relative to such injury shall deliver to such injured person a copy of such written statement forthwith or a verified

typed transcription of such recording within 30 days from the date such statement was given or recording made, when and if

the statement or recording is transcribed or in all cases when requested by the injured person or his attorney.

B. Unless otherwise ordered for good cause shown, when one party to a civil proceeding subpoenas documents, the subpoenaing

party. upon receipt of the subpoenaed documents. shall. if requested in writing. provide true and full copies of the same to arty

other party or to the attorney for any other party. provided the other party or attorney for the other party pays the reasonable

cost of copying or reproducing the subpoenaed documents. This provision does not apply where the subpoenaed documents are

retomahle to and maintained by the clerk of court in which the action is pending.

C. After he gives written notice that he represents an injured person, an attorney, or an individual injured in a motor vehicle

accident ifhe is not represented by counsel, may, prior to the filing of a civil action for personal injuries sustained as a result

of a motor vehicle accident. request in writing that the insurer disclose the limits of liability of any motor vehicle liability or

any personal injury liability insurance policy that may be applicable to the claim. The requesting party shall provide the insurer

with the date of the motor vehicle accident, the name and last known address of the alleged tortfeasor. a copy of the accident

report, if any, and the claim number, if available. The requesting party shall also submit to the insurer the injured person's

medical records. medical bills. and wage-loss documentation. if applicable. pertaining to the claimed injury. If the total of all

such medical bills and wage losses equals or exceeds $12.500. the insurer shall respond in writing within 30 days of receipt

of the request and shall disclose the limits of liability at the time of the accident of all such policies. regardless of whether the

insurer contests the applicability of the policy to the injured person's claim. Disclosure of the policy limits under this section

shall not constitute an admission that the alleged injury or damage is subject to the policy. Infonnation concerning the insurance

policy is not by reason of disclosure pursuant to this subsection admissible as evidence at trial.

D. After he gives written notice that he represents the personal representative of the estate of a decedent who died as a result of

a motor vehicle accident, an attorney, or the personal representative of the estate of the decedent who died as a result of a motor

vehicle accident ifhe is not represented by counsel, may, prior to the filing ofa civil action for wrongful death as a result of a

motor vehicle aCcident, request in writing that the insurer disclose the limits ofliability of any motor vehicle liability insurance

policy or any personal injury liability insurance policy that may be applicable to the claim. The requesting party shall provide

the insurer with the dale of the motor vehicle accident, the name and last known address of the alleged tortfeasor. a copy of the

accident report. if any. and the claim number. if available. The requesting party shall submit to the insurer the death certificate of

the decedent; the certificate of qualification of the personal representative of the decedent's estate; the names and relationships

of the statutory beneficiaries of the decedent; medical bills. if any. supporting a claim for damages under subdivision 3 of §

8.01 -52; and. ifat the time the request is made a claim for damages under clause (i) of subdivision 2 of § 8.01-52 is anticipated.

a description of the source. amount. and payment history of the claimed income loss for each beneficiary. The insurer shall

respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of the request and shall disclose the limits ofliability at the time of the accident

of all such policies, regardless of whether the insurer contests the applicability of the policy to the personal representative's

" �-,,,.",",,-���.,�,�.�.,�,. ,,���,,�����-.�-.-,---�--�----,---�- - , � - ,

i.:, <!idwNext 1

§ 8.01-417. Copies of written statements or transcriptions of ... , VA ST § 8.01-417

claim. Disclosure of the policy limits under this section shall not constitute an admission that the alleged death or other damage

is subject to the policy. Infonnation concerning the insurance policy is not by reason of disclosure pursuant to this subsection

admissible as evidence at trial.

Credits

Acts 1977, c. 617. Amended by Acts 2004, c. 345; Acts 2005, c. 21 1 ; Acts 2008, c. 819; Acts 2010, c. 354; Acts 2010, c. 435.

VA Code Ann. § 8.01-417, VA ST § 8.01-417

Current through End of2012 Reg. Sess. and End of2012 Sp. Sess. 1.

End of Do('umenl i') _�01 2 Thnrn�,)tl Renters. No claim to original t .S. CJovcrnmellt Work,;.

§ 33�6F�2. Disclosure of certain insurance information required, WV ST § 33�6F�2

West's Annotated Code of West Virginia

Chapter 33. Insurance

Article 6F. Disclosure of Nonpublic Personal Information

W. Va. Code, § 33-6F-2

§ 33-6F-2. Disclosure of certain insurance information required

Effective: June 8, 2012

Currentness

Notwithstanding the provisions of section one, article six�f, of this chapter:

(a) Each insurer that may provide personal lines liability insurance coverage as that tenn is defined in section nine, article

twelve of this chapter to pay all or a portion of a claim asserted against an insurance policy insuring a motor vehicle shall

provide, within thirty days of its receipt of a written request from a claimant's attorney who has given written notice that he

or she represents the claimant:

(1) A response providing the following infonnation relating to each of the insurer's known policies of insurance, including

excess or umbrella insurance, which does or may provide liability coverage for the claim:

(A) The name of the insurer;

(8) The name of each named insured of the subject policy; and

(C) The limits of any motor vehicle liability insurance policy at the time of the events that are the subject of the claim; or

(2) The declarations page of any motor vehicle liability policy applicable at the time of the events that are the subject of the

claim, appropriately redacted to comply with applicable privacy laws or regulations;

(b) Any written request by the claimant's attorney under this section must include: (1) The date and location of the events that

are the subject of the claim; (2) the name and, if known, the last known address of the insured; (3) a copy of the accident

or incident report, if any; (4) the insurer's claim number; (5) a good faith estimate and documentation of all of the claimanfs

medical expenses if any and any wage loss documentation as of the date of the request, ifany; and (6) documentation as of the

date of the request of any and all property damage.

(c) Disclosure of the infonnation required by subsection (a) of this section shall not constitute an admission that the alleged

injury or damage is subject to the policy, nor shall such disclosure waive any reservation of rights an insurer may have.

(d) No information disclosed by any party pursuant to this section shall be, by reason of such disclosure, admissible as evidence

at trial.

(e) An insurer's compliance with this section does not constitute a violation of this article, or subsection twelve, section eleven,

article six of this chapter.

(I) An insurer that fails to comply with this section is subject to a penalty of five hundred dollars, plus reasonable attorneys'

fees and expenses incurred in obtaining disclosure of the information required by subsection (a) of this section. This penalty is

the sole and exclusive remedy for an insurer's failure to comply with this section.

Credits

Acts 2012, c. 95, eff. June 8, 2012.

CO·VBn;rnent

§ 33-SF-2. Disclosure of certain insurance information required, WV ST § 33-6F-2

w. Va. Code, § 33-6F-2, WV ST § 33-6F-2

Current with laws of the 2012 First Extraordinary Session

End of llocumcnt 1.; :,01 :: ThulTlson Renter,>, "'0 claim to original l.:.S. (jovcrnm('nl Work,>.

No 1Q O!''O!l�' U S Govsmn'snt

TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, D.C. 1919 M Street NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20036

(202) 659-3532 I fax (202) 775-9040 I dctriallawyers@tla-dc.org I www.tla-dc.org

Trial l..aw}'eTs A.ssoei:l{ion 01 1\kUtJpolillm W2�hilJgl"IL DC

OFFICERS

President Karen Evans

President-Elect Victor Long

Vice President Denis Mitchell

Treasurer Joseph Cammarata

Secretary David Haynes

Immediate Past President Adam Leighton

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Kenneth J. Annis Justin Beall Catherine Bertram Janel! Byrd-Chitcbester Kim Brooks-Rodney Thomas C. Cardaro Paulette Chapman Paul Cornoni Linda M. Correia Keith Donaboe David Ginsburg Jack Gold Steven Kaminski Frank Kearney John S. Lopatto II] Cbarles Meltmar Craig Millcr Christopber Nace Scott Pury Meliba Perez-Halpern Archie Rkh Ebony Robinson Christopber J. Russo John SeUingcr W. Seott Sonntag Gregory Smith Jerry Spitz Eric Stravitz David Tompkins Kejth W. Watters

AAJ GOVERNORS

Patrick A. Malone Patrick M. Regan

AAJ DELEGATES

Allan M. Siegel Salvatore J. Zambo

AAJ MINORrrY CAUCUS Karen Evans

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mary Zambri

LEGISL4.. T1VE ANALYST

Christina Figueras

October 26, 2012

Chairman Phil Mendelson District of Columbia Council 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 402 Washington, DC 20004

RE: Pre-Litigation Discovery ofInsurance Coverage Act 0(2012

Dear Chairman Mendelson:

At your request, we have addressed the concerns of the DC Insurance Federation (DCIF) regarding bill 19-890 "Pre-Litigation Discovery of Insurance coverage Act of2012." In the written testimony of Wayne McOwen, the DCIF had five proposed suggestions. We have listed them below along with our response.

I . Include ONE OF the following phrases in the legislation: a. "Disclosure ofthe required documentation does not constitute an admission that a claim is subject to the applicable agreement between the insurer and the alleged torfeasor." TLA-DC response: TLA-DC has no objection to the addition of this language.

b. "Disclosure of the required documentation does not constitute a waiver of any term or condition of the applicable agreement between the insurer and the alleged tortfeasor or any right of the insurer, including any potential defense concerning coverage or liability." TLA-DC response: TLA-DC has no objection to the addition of this language.

2. An insurer, and the employees and agents of an insurer, may not be civilly or criminally liable for the disclosure of documentation required. TLA-DC response: TLA-DC has no objection to the addition of this language. We are unaware of a privacy law that the insurer would be violating by disclosing such information and the likely person to which the insurer would be liable is the carrier's own insured. TLA-OC does not object and hopes that the addition of this language will encourage settlement of claims.

3. The total of all medical bills and wage losses must equal or exceed $12,500. TLA-DC response: TLA-OC does not support this change in the legislation. There are many types of claims where the damages are not of a

TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 01<' METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, D.C. October 26, 201 2

Page 2 of2

significant monetary value; however, the damage to the injured person is, nonetheless, significant. A few examples of such cases involve death after injury and injuries such as broken ribs and broken noses, These injuries are no less significant to the injured person. There is no reasonable public policy argument to imposing a random threshold amount. If a nefarious client or attorney wanted to "trump up" or increase medical care after learning the applicable limits, as the insurance carriers argue, he/she could do so after filing suit and learning the applicable limits; therefore, the threshold will not limit bad behavior and fraudulent claims,

The only jurisdictions which call for a threshold are Virginia and Maryland.

The following jurisdictions do not require a threshold: Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia.

4. Applicability of the pre-litigation requirement should be limited to requesting attorneys.

TLA-DC response: TLA-DC has no objection to the addition of this language.

As to the issue of enforceability, we would propose a provision that the carrier be required to pay a reasonable attorney's fee, not to be less than $ 2 ,000.00, and costs if one is required to file suit in order to compel compliance with this statute.

Thank you for your leadership on this matter.

Respectfully yours,

By &;J?if\. �"M IJt en Evans 7 \president

. .' C��.ii )Je:.ticL-?-<1 d)'\ / t !. James Nathanson .J i /

Legislative Counsel

L,,-, 1 cZ' James W, Taglieri

' Legislative Chair

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America Shaping the Future of American Insurance

October 26, 2012

The Honorable Phil Mendelson Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary Council of the District of Columbia 1 350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Chairman Mendelson,

Micaela Isler Assistant Vice President­State Government Relations

On behalf of over 1 ,000 member companies, whom together write more than 27 percent of the property casualty insurance written 'n the District of Columbia, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on B19-890 " Pre-Litigation Discovery of Insurance Act of 201 ."

The expressed intent of the bill is to provide a mechanism for injured parties to discover the insurance limits of a defendant before suit is filed. The proponents believe that in order to properly advise their clients about settlement, they must know the amount of insurance coverage available will promote fairness and transparency and facilitate the settlement negotiation process.

There are 16 states with similar laws on the books, the two most recent enactments being in the neighboring states of Maryland a d Virginia. Both laws are the result of thorough negotiation between the various stakeholders to ensure that the goals of facilitating prompt settlements, protecting privacy of policyholders and eliminating abuse are achieved. To achieve those goals in the District f Columbia, we make the following recommendations:

1 ) Disclosure requests should only be made by the claimant attorney.

Insurers concerns with such laws include ensuring that the policyholder's privacy is protected by disclosing insurance information i only to those with a legitimate need for iLAs such, only claimant's attorney, who has already provided notice of representation to t e insurer, should be permitted to make such a request.

2) There should be a threshold of documented damages that must be met prior to making a request.

The bill in its current form requires documentation of the injuries and damages alleged that must be supplied with the request. But e believe that setting a dollar threshold for such requests is an important protection against frivolous requests.

The majority of these requests arise from auto accidents which could involve limits as low as the statutory minimum of $25,000 pe person. Virginia ($25,000) and Maryland ($30,000) have similar minimum limits. Setting a damage threshold eliminates frivolous requests on cases that are clearly well within the minimum coverage limits while requiring documentation that will encourage quic settlements of claims that are clearly worth more than the minimum limits.

3) Insurers must be immune from civil or criminal liability arising from compliance, nor should compliance be conside d any admission of liability or waiver of any liability or policy defense.

The purpose of B19-890 is to encourage prompt settlement by faCilitating an expedited exchange of information between the injur d party and the liability insurer. Allowing plaintiffs to attempt to argue that an insurer has somehow waived any available would have the opposite effect and clearly be counterproductive in these situations.

Once again, on behalf of our member companies, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this measure. I can be reached at (202) 349-7470 should you have questions or need additional information.

Micaela A. Isler

2600 South River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60018-3286 Telephone 847-297-7800 FaCSimile 847-297-5064 www.pciaa.net

Natwar M. Gandhi Chief Financial Officer

MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Conclusion

Government of the District of Columbia

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

* * *

The Honorable Phil Mendelson Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia

Natwar M. Chief FinanCll!>MIIIl!:£!:..!:""

November 20, 2012

Fiscal Impact Statement - "Pre-litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Act of 2012"

Bill 1 9-890 - Draft Committee Print shared with the Office of Revenue Analysis on November 16, 2012

Funds are sufficient in the FY 2013 through FY 2016 budget and financial plan to implement the bill.

Background

The bill requires pre-litigation disclosure of any insurance agreement so that involved parties can factor into their decision on settlement or litigation amounts the defendant's ability to satisfy all or part of a claim as a result of such insurance agreements. As a result, a claimant would be able to obtain from the defendant's insurer the relevant coverage information without having to file a suit. The bill extends the same privilege to the estate or beneficiary of an individual killed in a car accident. Furthermore the bill clarifies that releasing of coverage information would not constitute an implicit agreement on the insurer's side to fulfill the claim; nor would it create any liability for the insurance company in a future suit regarding privacy laws.

Financial Plan Impact

Funds are sufficient in the FY 2013 through FY 2016 budget and financial plan to implement the bill. The changes proposed in the bill do not impact the District's budget and financial plan.

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 203, Washington, DC 20004 (202)727·2476 www.cfo.dc.gov

1 COMMITTEE PRINT

2 Co mmit tee on the Judiciary

3 Nove mbe r 29, 201 2

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 A BILL 1 1

12

1 3 1 9-890 14

15

16 1N THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 17

18

19 20 2 1 To re quire pre -litigation disclosu re o f any insurance ag ree ment under which ce rtain 22 persons may be liable to satisfY all or part o f the clai m or to inde mnifY or 23 rei mburse for pay ments made to satisfY the clai m by insurance co mpanies in order 24 to facilitate settle ments and to reduce the a mount o f litigation in the Superior 25 Court o fthe District o f Colu mbia . 26 27 BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ,

28 That this act may be cited as the "Pre-litigation Discovery o fInsu rance Coverage

29 A mend ment Act o f 20 1 2 ".

30 Sec. 2. The Co mpulsorylNo -Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act o f 1 982,

3 1 e f fective Septe mber 1 8 , 1 982 (D.C . La w 4 -1 55; D.C. Official Code § 3 1 -2401 et seq.) is

32 a mended by adding a new section 4a to read as follows :

33 "Sec . 4a. Pre -litigation Discovery o f Insurance.

34 "(a) After a clai mant ma kes a written clai m for co mpensation or da mages

35 concerning a vehicle accident , and provides the docu ments described in subsection (b) or

36 (d) o f this section to an insurer, the clai mant shall be entitled to obtain fro m the insurer

documentation of th e applicable limits of coverage in any insurance agreement under

2 wh ich th e insurer may be liable to:

3 "(1) Satisfy all or part of th e claim; or

4 "(2) Indemnify or reimburse for pay ments made to satisfY th e claim.

5 "(b) In order for a claimant to obtain th e documentation described in subsection

6 (a) of th is section from th e insurer, th e claimant sh all provide th e following, in writing, to

7 th e insurer:

8 "(1) Th e date of th e veh icle accident;

9 "(2) Th e name and last known address of th e alleged tortfeasor;

10 "(3) A copy of th e veh icle accident report, if any;

1 1 "(4) Th e insurer' s claim number, if available;

12 "(5) Th e claimant' s h ealth care bills and documentation of th e claimant' s

13 loss of income, if any, resulting from th e veh icle accident; and

14 "(6) Th e records of h ealth care treatment for th e claimant' s injuries caused

15 by th e veh icle accident.

16 "(c) If th e claim is brough t by th e estate of an individual or a benefi ciary of th e

17 individual, wh ose death resulted from a veh icle accident, th e insurer must provide th e

18 documentation described in subsection (a) of th is section if th e claimant provides th e

19 following, in writing, to th e insurer:

20 "(1) Th e date of th e veh icle accident;

21 "(2) Th e name and last known address of th e alleged tortfeasor;

22 "(3) A copy of th e veh icle accident report, if any;

23 "(4) Th e insurer' s claim number, if available;

2

"(5) A copy ofthe decedent's death certificate issued in the District of

2 Columbia or another jurisdiction;

3 "(6) A copy of the letters of administration issued to appoint the personal

4 representative of the decedent's estate in the District of Columbia or a substantially

5 similar document issued by another jurisdiction;

6 "(7) The name of each beneficiary of the decedent, if known;

7 "(8) The relationship to the decedent of each known beneficiary of the

8 decedent;

9 "(9) The health care bills for health care treatment, if any, ofthe decedent

10 resulting from the vehicle accident; and

1 1 "(10) The records of health care treatment for injuries to the decedent

12 caused by the vehicle accident.

\ 3 "(d) After receipt ofthe documents pursuant to either subsection (b) or (c) of this

14 section, the insurer shall respond in writing within 30 days of receipt ofthe request

15 pursuant to subsection (a) and shall disclose the limits of coverage, of all policies,

16 regardless of whether the insurer contests the applicability of the policy to the claim.

17 "(e) Disclosure of documentation required under this section shall not constitute:

1 8 "(1) An admission that the asserted claim is subject to the applicable

19 agreement between the insurer and the alleged tortfeasor.

20 "(2) A waiver of any term or condition of the applicable agreement

2 1 between the insurer and the alleged tortfeasor or any right ofthe insurer, including any

22 potential defense concerning coverage or liability.

23 "(f) An insurer, and the employees and agents of an insurer, may not be civilly or

3

criminally liable for disclosure of the required documentation.

2 "(g) Infonnation concerning the insurance policy is not, by reason of disclosure

3 pursuant to this section, admissible as evidence at trial.

4 "(h) For the purposes of this section, "vehicle accident" includes accidents

5 involving bicyclists.".

6 Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement.

7 The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the

8 fiscal impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia Home

9 Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813 ; D.C. Official Code § 1-

10 206.02(c)(3)).

1 1 Sec. 4. Effective date.

12 This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto

13 by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of

14 Congressional review as provided in section 602( c )(2) of the District of Columbia Home

15 Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 8 13 ; D.C. Official Code § 1-

1 6 206.02(c)(2)), and publication in the District of Columbia Register.

4

C O U N C I L O F T H E D I S T R I C T O F C O L U M B I A C O M M I T T E E O N T H E J U D I C I A RY N O T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G 1 350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004

CHAIRMAN PHIL MENDELSON COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ANNOUNCES A PUBLIC HEARING

on

Bill 19-802, Council Notificatiou on Enforcement of Laws Amendment Act of2012

Bill 19-828, Breath Test Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings Amendment Act of2012; and

Bill 19-890, Pre-litigation Discovery ofInsurance Coverage Act of 2012

on

Friday, October 12, 2012 12:30 p.m., Hearing Room 412, John A. Wilson Building

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004

Chairman Phil Mendelson announces the scheduling of a public hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary on Bill 1 9-802, Council Notification on Enforcement of Laws Amendment Act of 20 1 2 , Bill 1 9-828, Breath Test Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings Amendment A c t o f 20 1 2, and Bill 19-890, Pre-litigation Discovery of Insurance Coverage Act of 2 0 1 2. The hearing will be held at 1 2:30p.m. on Friday, October 1 2, 20 1 2 in Hearing Room 4 1 2 of the John A. Wilson Building.

The stated purpose of Bil l 1 9-802 is to require the Attorney General to report to the Council any action, suit, or proceeding in which a District law is challenged as unconstitutional or in violation of the Home Rule Act, and also to require the Attorney General to report to the Council whenever a formal or informal policy is established or implemented to refrain from implementing or defending a District law. The stated purpose of Bill 1 9-828 is to create a list of criteria for accepting into evidence in a criminal proceeding a person's breath test results associated with an impaired driving offense. The stated purpose of Bil l 1 9-890 is to require pre-litigation disclosure of any insurance agreement under which certain persons may be liable to satisfy all or part of the claim or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the claim by insurance companies in order to facilitate settlements and to reduce the amount of litigation in D.C. Superior Court.

Those who wish to testify should contact Mr. Brian Moore, Committee Director, at (202) 724-7808, by fax at (202) 724-6664, or via e-mail at bmoore@dccouncil.us, and provide their name, address, telephone number, organizational affiliation and title (if any) by close of business Wednesday, October 1 0, 2 0 1 2. Persons wishing to testify are encouraged, but not required, to submit 1 5 copies of written testimony. If submitted by the close of business on Wednesday, October 1 0, 20 1 2 the testimony will be distributed to Councilmembers before the hearing. Witnesses should limit their testimony to five minutes; less time will be allowed if there are a large number of witnesses.

If you are unable to testify at the hearing, written statements are encouraged and will be made a part of the official record. Copies of written statements should be submitted either to Mr. Moore,

or to Ms. Nyasha Smith, Secretary to the Council, Room 5 of the Wilson Building, 1 3 5 0 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004. The record will close at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 26, 20 1 2.

C O U N C I L O F T H E D I S T R I C T O F C O L U M B I A C O M M I T T E E O N T H E J U D I C I A RY W I T N E S S L I S T 1 350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 DRAFT

CHAIRMAN PHIL MENDELSON

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

ANNOUNCES A PUBLIC HEARING

on

Bill 1 9-802, Council Notification on Enforcement of Laws Amendment Act of 2012

Bill 1 9-828, Breath Test Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings Amendment Act of 2012; and

1 .

2.

1 .

2.

Bill 1 9-890, Pre-litigation Discovery ofInsurance Coverage Act of 2012

on

Friday, October 12, 2012

1 2 :30 p.m., Hearing Room 412, John A. Wilson Building

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

W I T N E S S L I S T

Bill 19-802, Council Notification on Enforcement of Laws Amendment Act of2012

Ariel Levinson-Waldman Senior Counsel, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia

Bill 19-828, Breath Test Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings Amendment Act of 2012; and

Laura Hankins

Lucas Zarwel l

Special Counsel, Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia

Chief Toxicologist, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner

Bill 1 9-890, Pre-litigation Discovery ofInsnrance Coverage Act of2012

James W. Taglieri

Wil l iam P. White

Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan DC

Commissioner, Department of Insurance Securities and Banking