State Farm asked the West Virginia Supreme Court to prohibit enforcement of the trial court's order. It asserted that the motion to compel should have been denied because, despite the agreed protective order that was in place, the effect of the ruling would permit the Bassetts to contact over 400 non-party State Farm policyholders without their prior consent, violating the policyholders' right to privacy.

The Interrogatories

The three interrogatories sought information regarding offers of UM coverage to other State Farm insureds:

3. Identify by name, address and telephone number every State Farm insured in the State of West Virginia, from 2005 to the present, who was injured by or suffered property damage as a result of the acts of an uninsured motorist and whose policy did not have uninsured motorists coverage limits at least equal to the liability limits stated in the insured's policy declarations [or] $100,000, whichever is greater. You may exclude from this response all insureds who obtained a judgment against the uninsured tortfeasor for less than the stated uninsured motorists coverage limits afforded by the State Farm policy or who settled his/her claim for uninsured motorists benefits for less than the stated uninsured motorists coverage limits afforded by the State Farm policy.

4. Identify the State Farm insured named in response to Interrogatory No. 3 who received payment under a State Farm policy for uninsured motorists benefits where the “Uninsured Motorist Coverage Offer” form listed more than a single premium for each optional level of uninsured motorists coverage.

5. Identify every claim in the State of West Virginia from 2005 to the present where State Farm has “rolled-up” or reformed an insured's stated limits of uninsured motorists coverage to an amount equal to the insured's liability coverage limits or $100,000, whichever is greater, indicating the claim number, the name, address and telephone number of the insured, and the reason or reasons the policy was reformed.

The West Virginia Supreme Court's Decision

The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had committed error by failing to bar the disclosure of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of State Farm's other insureds. Therefore, the court ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and “any information of a personal nature” concerning State Farm's other West Virginia insureds had to be redacted from State Farm's answers to the three interrogatories and redacted from any documents provided to support those answers.

The court declared that the disclosure of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the non-party insureds was “unwarranted” in the context of the Bassetts' assertion of unfair claim settlement practices. It also found that, although the Bassetts' demand for punitive damages remained viable, the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of State Farm's other policyholders were “not discoverable.”

The court said that it reached this conclusion in view of:

- the disclosure of the form State Farm used with regard to its non-party insureds;

- the disclosure, quantitatively, of when and how often State Farm paid additional coverage;

- State Farm's disclosure of the first-party lawsuits filed against State Farm that contained allegations of bad faith or unfair trade practices; and

- the “inadequacy to safeguard against intrusive contacts” of State Farm's other West Virginia insureds.

The case is West Virginia ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Cramer, No. 15–1101 (W.Va. March 8, 2016). Attorneys involved include: R. Carter Elkins, Esq., Laura L. Gray, Esq., Elkins Ray, PLLC, Huntington, WV, for the Petitioner, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Brent K. Kesner, Esq., Ernest G. Hentschel, Esq., Kesner & Kesner, PLLC, Charleston, WV, Gregory A. Gellner, Esq, Gellner Law Offices, Wheeling, WV, for Respondents, William Bassett and Sarah Bassett.