Lancer Insurance Case Summary

This office represents Plaintiff, Eric Avogardo, in the above-captioned case. Please accept this letter-brief in lieu of a more formal reply and opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order pending for April 28, 2017 for the deposition and materials of Nancy Holden, Senior Claims Examiner of Lancer Insurance Company.

The New Jersey Supreme Court Rules governing discovery in civil cases are designed to eliminate as far as possible concealment and surprise at trial, so that cases are decided upon their merits rather than the skill and maneuvering of counsel. Abtrax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 139 N.J. 499, 512 (1995). R. 4:14-7 permits parties to subpoena the attendance of witnesses in order to prepare and present

Recently, the testimony of Mr. Robinson, the owner of Defendant, Circle Gas Station, revealed that a longer surveillance video existed and was provided to Nancy Holden, Senior Claims Examiner of Lancer Insurance Company. The rules are clear that the Plaintiff has a right to know the names, addresses of persons having relevant information, so as to, for example subpoena such persons and question them under oath as to what they know pursuant to standard Form C Interrogatories to be answered by Defendants. Moreover, it raises further questions what other documents are available, but have not been provided to the Plaintiff. Please note that the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with a Notice of Bad Faith Claim and is entitled to deposition for that

Rainner, 69 N.J. 50, 350 A.2d 473 (1976), the plaintiff’s demanded that defendant present a print of each film for examination during the deposition and for trial. At the deposition, the defendant’s attorney objected. The Supreme Court reviewed the issue of discoverability of films deciding on: (1) whether there was substantial need for the surveillance, and (2) whether the plaintiff would be unable to obtain the evidence without undue hardship. The Supreme Court held that “full discovery for both sides require that the opportunity be afforded to fill in that gap by interrogation directed to the specific activities filmed.” Id, at 60, 478. Since the decision, the process routinely followed in personal injury litigation to avoid prejudice for the video surveillance to be identified, if there is intent to use it at trial and to allow for the deposition and disclosure of the surveillance