Travelers Excess & Surplus Lines Company v Via Trivio Corporation
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Insurance subrogation and civil discovery, specifically whether a party can be compelled to provide authorizations for records belonging to a nonparty individual.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, directed Crown Deli, Inc. to provide authorizations executed by its nonparty owner so the plaintiff could obtain his blood alcohol content (BAC) test results from March 3, 2019, and records of his purchases at a club on March 2 and 3, 2019.
The Appellate Division reversed the portions of the order compelling Crown Deli, Inc. to provide those authorizations.
Under CPLR 3101(a)(4) [rule governing disclosure from nonparties], the proper method for obtaining discovery from a nonparty is a subpoena with notice, not an order forcing a party to produce authorizations signed by the nonparty.
Background
Travelers Excess & Surplus Lines Company commenced this subrogation action in April 2021 after paying its insured, Chatam Management Co., Inc., for fire damage to real property. The insurer alleged that a March 3, 2019 fire on the premises was caused by the negligent operation of a grill and cooking areas by Crown Deli, Inc.'s owner, who was allegedly impaired or intoxicated. During discovery, the plaintiff sought the owner's hospital and medical records, including blood alcohol content (BAC) test results from the date of the fire, as well as records of purchases he made at a club the night before and the day of the fire.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion in part and required Crown Deli, Inc. to provide a limited Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant authorization signed by its owner for the BAC test results, along with an authorization signed by him for the club purchase records.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed insofar as appealed from and denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion. The court held that because the records belonged to Crown Deli's nonparty owner, the plaintiff could not compel Crown Deli to furnish authorizations from him. Instead, the plaintiff was required to seek the material directly from the nonparty through a subpoena under CPLR 3101(a)(4) [rule governing disclosure from nonparties].
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that nonparty discovery in New York must follow the procedural route set out in CPLR 3101(a)(4), typically by subpoena with notice. A litigant may not bypass that process by requiring an opposing party to obtain and turn over authorizations executed by a nonparty, even where the nonparty is the owner of a corporate party and the sought-after records are relevant to the claims.
If a plaintiff wants medical or other personal records from a nonparty, the plaintiff must pursue them through nonparty discovery procedures, not by forcing a party to secure the nonparty's authorizations.