Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Attorney-Client Privilege In Insurance Bad-Faith Cases

On February 26, 2026, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in Eddy v. Farmers Property Cas. Ins. Co., clarifying when an insurer is entitled to assert the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine in bad faith litigation. The Court held that materials in an insurer's claim file, that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, are only subject to disclosure if the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of bad faith. Work-product materials within the claim file are subject to disclosure only upon a showing of good cause.

Under the Supreme Court's 2001 precedent in Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co., materials in an insurer's claim file "that show an insurer's lack of good faith in denying coverage" were deemed "unworthy of protection" by the attorney-client privilege. After Boone, the Ohio General Assembly modified the statute that codifies the attorney-client privilege, R.C. 2317.02, to state that an attorney representing an insurance company may be compelled to testify regarding communications with the client only if the party seeking disclosure of the communications has "made a prima-facie showing of bad faith, fraud, or criminal misconduct" by the client.

While R.C. 2317.02(A)(2) refers to testimonial evidence, the Supreme Court held in Eddy that it also applies to documentary evidence. The Court noted that it has "long held that a statutory provision that prevents an attorney from testifying about attorney-client communications also precludes attempts to obtain documents that reveal those communications." Accordingly, R.C. 2317.02(A)(2) supersedes Boone with respect to attorney-client privilege, and plaintiffs in bad faith cases who seek claim file materials protected by the attorney-client privilege must first make a prima facie showing of bad faith. If the party makes such a showing, the Court must conduct an in camera inspection and require only the disclosure of materials that relate to the attorney's "aiding or furthering an ongoing or future commission of bad faith by the client."

In addition to its analysis of attorney-client privilege, Eddy also provides guidance regarding the work-product doctrine. The plaintiffs in Eddy argued that Boone required the disclosure of work-product materials when it is alleged that an insurer has engaged in a bad-faith failure to settle, and that this holding was not abrogated by R.C. 2317.02(A)(2), which applies only to the attorney-client privilege. But because the Court in Boone specifically declined to allow the discovery of materials that it considered to be attorney work product, the Eddy Court concluded that Boone's holding never extended to the work-product doctrine. Accordingly, the work-product doctrine applies to an insurer's claim file the same way it applies to other materials: work-product materials in the claim file may be disclosed "only upon a showing of good cause," as provided by Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 26(B)(4).

The key takeaway here is Eddy provides important clarification about the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine in bad faith litigation. Only if a party makes a prima facie showing of bad faith can it receive an insurer's claim file material that is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Similarly, a party can obtain work-product material contained within the claim file only upon a showing of good cause. The Court's opinion can be found here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.