Summary
The auto insurer argued that there was no independent tort for third-party negligent spoliation of evidence and impairment of a claim or defense. The state's highest court noted that the homeowners' insurer failed to seek a court order to compel the preservation of the vehicle. The homeowners' insurer could have sought pre-action disclosure or a temporary restraining order. It also could have bought the car from the auto insurer, offered to pay the costs associated with preservation, or commenced suit and issued a subpoena duces tecum to the auto insurer. Thus, the auto insurer had no duty to preserve the vehicle. The homeowners' insurer made no effort to preserve the vehicle by court order or written agreement. Although the homeowners' insurer verbally requested the preservation of the vehicle, it never placed that request in writing or volunteered to cover the costs associated with preservation. The burden of forcing a party to preserve evidence when it had no notice of an impending ...
