United States First Circuit

In a case seeking to recover under the underinsured motorist (UIM) provision of an employer's automobile insurance policy: 1) the district court's denial of the plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery and for sanctions against the insurer is affirmed, where a) the plaintiff did not demonstrate that she was unable to obtain information during a deposition that fell within the scope of mandated discovery, b) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing sanctions for the insurer's instructing its product manager director not to answer a series of questions at the end of her deposition, and c) the director was not an unfit Rule 30(b)(6) witness entitling the plaintiff to Rule 37 sanctions; and 2) the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer is affirmed, where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her employer explicitly purchased or bargained for the UIM coverage with the specific intention of providing such coverage to employees injured on the job.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/28/2012
• Published 02/28/2012

Judges

• Stahl

Court

• United States First Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Merrill J. Friedemann, Paul V. Sullivan