BENTON – St. Clair Country Club of Belleville can’t stop Cincinnati Insurance from serving subpoenas on contractors who have seen the clubhouse roof, U.S. Magistrate Judge Reona Daly ruled on June 26.
She found the club lacked standing to quash the subpoenas.
“It is not apparent on the record before the court that the subpoenas at issue impinge on any trade secret or other confidential commercial information,” she wrote.
Daly found Cincinnati sought relatively routine information relating to services performed, solicited, or proposed to be performed at the club.
Jarrod Beasley of Belleville filed the club’s complaint against Cincinnati in St. Clair County Circuit Court last year.
Beasley alleged bad faith in the denial of $242,110.64 in coverage following a storm on May 15, 2022.
Cincinnati removed the lawsuit to district court, asserting diversity jurisdiction as an Ohio business.
In May, Cincinnati sent subpoenas to Geissler Roofing and Four Points Roofing and Siding, both of Belleville, Holland Construction of Swansea, Stay Roofing of Millstadt, Martin Roofing of Mascoutah, D. E. Martin Roofing of Lebanon, and Centi Mark of Hazelwood, Mo.
Beasley moved to quash the subpoenas, claiming Cincinnati couldn’t assert new defenses through a new investigation.
“Plaintiff has alleged there was hail damage to the roof and fully performed its obligations under the contract and thus Defendant is in breach,” he wrote.
Beasley claimed Cincinnati admitted its reason for denial and its investigation were inadequate.
Cincinnati counsel Isaac Melton of Chicago opposed the motion in June.
He claimed parties lack standing to quash a subpoena issued to one who is not a party, “unless the party claims some personal right or privilege with regard to the documents sought.”
Melton claimed subpoenas went to companies that inspected the roof before and after the storm.
He claimed inspections prior to the storm might support opinions of Cincinnati’s engineer that hail fell on the property more than once and damage to some shingles wasn’t a result of wind.
“Documents from companies that performed inspections following plaintiff’s alleged loss may reveal further information as to the cause of the roof damage or conversations with plaintiff representatives pressuring them to claim the damage is weather related in order to ensure their bid was accepted to perform the roof replacement,” he wrote.
Daly found she must modify or quash a subpoena if it requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter.
She found the Seventh Circuit recognizes a party might have standing to move to quash a subpoena addressed to a third party if it infringes on the movant’s legitimate interests.
“The moving party must establish the impropriety of the subpoena,” she wrote.
Daly found the information Cincinnati sought was relevant and proportional to the needs of the case considering the importance of the issues and the weighing of burdens and benefits.
She has set trial to begin in January.