In insurance litigation, few facts matter more than the amount of coverage actually available. Policy Limit Discovery often determines case value, settlement posture, and trial strategy. Yet insurers frequently resist early disclosure, citing relevance, confidentiality, or procedural technicalities.

Getting limits “on the record” requires a deliberate discovery strategy, one that blends procedural rules, precision drafting, and strategic pressure. This article explores practical, court-tested approaches to uncovering policy limits efficiently and defensibly.

Why Policy Limits Matter Early

Policy limits shape nearly every strategic decision in a coverage-driven case. Plaintiffs need to know whether the defendant is judgment-proof beyond insurance, whether to pursue additional insureds, and whether early settlement is realistic. Defendants and insurers, meanwhile, want to manage exposure and avoid setting precedents that encourage inflated demands.

Courts increasingly recognize that Policy Limit Discovery is discoverable because they directly relate to potential recovery and settlement. Many jurisdictions expressly allow discovery of “the existence and contents” of insurance agreements. Even where rules are silent or ambiguous, judges often permit disclosure when limits bear on proportionality, mediation, or bad-faith claims. The challenge is not whether limits are discoverable, but how to obtain them without unnecessary motion practice.

Start With Rule-Based Mandatory Disclosures

The cleanest path is through mandatory initial disclosures. In many jurisdictions, parties must disclose insurance agreements that may satisfy all or part of a judgment. This includes:

·       The existence of coverage

·       The identity of insurers

·       Applicable Policy Limit Discovery

If the opposing party omits limits or provides vague summaries, that omission is often grounds for a deficiency letter or a motion to compel. The key is speed: raise the issue immediately. Silence or delay can be framed later as waiver or acquiescence.

Practice tip: Quote the rule verbatim in your deficiency correspondence. Judges are more receptive when you demonstrate that the request is not aggressive discovery, but simple rule compliance.

Use Targeted Interrogatories, Not Fishing Expeditions

When initial disclosures fall short, narrowly tailored interrogatories are your next line of attack. Broad questions like “identify all insurance coverage” invite objections. Instead, use precision:

Identify each policy potentially applicable to the claims

State the per-occurrence and aggregate limits

Specify any erosion, exhaustion, or reservation of rights

These interrogatories are hard to dodge without appearing evasive. They also create a written record that can later support sanctions or adverse inferences if responses are misleading.

Practice tip: Avoid asking for “copies of policies” at the same time. Courts are more likely to compel limits than full policy language early on. Get the numbers first.

Requests for Admission: Locking in the Numbers

Requests for Admission (RFAs) are underused but powerful tools for Policy Limit Discovery. An insurer may resist producing documents, but denying a straightforward numerical fact under oath carries risk.

Effective RFAs include:

“Admit that Policy No. X provides a per-occurrence limit of $1,000,000.”

“Admit that no umbrella or excess policy provides coverage above $Y for the claims asserted.”

If the responding party denies or claims lack of knowledge, you’ve created leverage. Courts often view such denials skeptically when the information is uniquely within the insurer’s control.

Practice tip: Pair RFAs with interrogatories. Inconsistent answers strengthen your credibility in a motion to compel.

Deposition Strategies That Force Disclosure

Depositions—especially of corporate representatives or claims adjusters—can be decisive. A well-prepared Rule 30(b)(6) notice that includes insurance topics can box in evasive parties.

Key deposition topics might include:

·       Identification of all applicable policies

·       Limits, sublimits, and aggregates

·       Erosion by defense costs or prior claims

Even if counsel instructs the witness not to answer, the objection itself creates a clean issue for the court. Judges are often less tolerant of deposition obstruction than written discovery gamesmanship.

Practice tip: Ask foundational questions first. Establish that the witness reviewed the policy and is designated to testify on coverage. That makes later “I don’t know” answers far less credible.

Leveraging Confidentiality Concerns

Insurers frequently argue that Policy Limit Discoveryare confidential or proprietary. Courts rarely accept this as a basis for non-disclosure, but they may allow protective orders.

Rather than fighting confidentiality outright, use it strategically. Agree to a standard protective order that limits use of the information to the litigation. This removes the insurer’s most common objection and signals reasonableness to the court.

Practice tip: Offer the protective order in your initial request. It undercuts claims that you are seeking leverage for improper purposes.

Motions to Compel: Make Them Surgical

When motion practice becomes necessary, restraint is an advantage. Judges respond better to narrowly framed motions that seek specific relief—e.g., disclosure of limits by a date certain—rather than sweeping discovery sanctions.

Your motion should emphasize:

·       Clear rule-based entitlement

·       Prior good-faith efforts to resolve

·       Prejudice caused by delay (e.g., stalled mediation)

Attach only the most relevant correspondence and discovery. Overloading the record dilutes your strongest points.

Using Policy Limits in Settlement and Mediation

Once Policy Limit Discovery are on the record, use them intelligently. Courts disfavor tactics that appear to weaponize discovery solely to coerce settlement. However, candid discussions grounded in documented limits are fair game.

In some jurisdictions, early disclosure of limits can also trigger or support bad-faith exposure if the insurer unreasonably refuses to settle within those limits. Having accurate limits in writing is essential before making any time-limited or policy-limits demands.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Waiting too long: Delayed requests look tactical rather than necessary.

Overreaching: Demanding full policy files too early invites resistance.

Ignoring local practice: Some courts expect informal resolution before motions.

Accepting vague answers: “Subject to policy terms” is not a limit disclosure.

Conclusion

Putting Policy Limit Discovery on the record is less about aggression and more about disciplined strategy. By starting with rule-based disclosures, using precise written discovery, leveraging RFAs and depositions, and neutralizing confidentiality objections, litigators can obtain this critical information efficiently. The result is not just better discovery—but better decision-making throughout the life of the case.