Courts have struggled, under both a privilege theory and pure work product doctrine analysis, with the difficulties of reconciling a broad discovery policy with the needs of an insured for confidentiality. Facing this difficulty, the Heidebrink court blurred the distinctions between privilege and work product immunity, potentially impeding the application of either. The Heidebrink court could have focused on the events triggering the insurance investigation, rather than on the insured-insurer relationship. This focus would provide meaningful guidance to lower courts, and would avoid undesirable consequences stemming from integration of privilege considerations with work product analysis.
Ronald S. Dinning,
Discoverability of an Insured's Post-Accident Statement to Insurer in Washington—Heidebrink v. Moriwaki, 104 Wn. 2d 392, 706 P.2d 212 (1985),
61 Wash. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol61/iss3/25