Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged

Post 5488

ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.

See the full video at https://youtu.be/160A3soQEaA and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html

In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.

South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert while evaluating the claim, which it ultimately denied.

In the ensuing coverage litigation, Rubesne moved to compel communications and related materials that ACE withheld under the Colorado Fraudulent Claims and Arson Information Reporting Act (AIA), attorney-client privilege, and work-product doctrine. After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.

LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery of nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The requesting party initially must show relevance; once relevance is shown or apparent, the resisting party must substantiate its objections. Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires insurers that reasonably suspect arson or insurance fraud to notify and furnish relevant information to an authorized agency. Such notifications and reports are confidential and generally not discoverable or admissible in civil litigation when the statutory immunity requirements are met. A fire department qualifies as an authorized agency. Attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine independently protect qualifying communications and litigation-preparation materials.

ANALYSIS

The withheld materials consisted of reports or notifications to South Metro Fire Rescue, communications among ACE, its agents and experts, and the fire department, and privileged communications with counsel. The court held that ACE met its burden to establish protection under the AIA, attorney-client privilege, work product, or a combination of those doctrines. It rejected Rubesne’s proposed reading of § 10-4-1004 as allowing ordinary civil discovery to override § 10-4-1003. Reading the statute as a whole, the mandatory disclosure duties, confidentiality rules, civil-discovery bar, and immunity provisions work together to promote candid cooperation between insurers and law enforcement. Allowing a civil litigant to obtain protected investigative communications merely by serving discovery would undermine that statutory design.

The “plain and ordinary” meaning of this statutory language compels this court to tread carefully before construing § 10-4-1004(1) to authorize an override of the AIA’s confidentiality strictures, designed to encourage the reporting of potential arson and insurance fraud, simply because a party has asked for AIA-protected materials in discovery in a civil case.

DISCUSSION

The court rejected four principal arguments. First, the AIA protects the full investigative exchange, not merely one-way statements from the insurer; otherwise, producing agency responses could reveal the substance of the insurer’s protected report. Second, the parties’ protective order did not waive privilege or convert protected material into discoverable material. Third, Brady v. Maryland did not apply because no criminal prosecution was pending; any criminal-discovery obligations would arise in a criminal case, not this civil coverage action. Fourth, the absence of criminal charges against a Rubesne affiliate and the existence of a possible suspect in nearby fires did not create a statutory exception. The record also did not identify that person as a suspect in the Rubesne fire.

CONCLUSION

The court denied Rubesne’s motion to compel.

ACE was not required to produce any disputed document because each was protected by the AIA privilege, attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or overlapping protections.

In sum, for the reasons set forth above, and being further informed by its in camera review of the documents, the court respectfully concludes that the privilege afforded by the AIA, the attorney-client privilege, and the work product doctrine have been properly invoked as to the documents at issue here. ACE has met its burden to establish that a privilege exists to shield each document from production. It will not be required to produce those documents.

ZALMA OPINION

A civil suit does not allow an insurer or its employees and counsel to disclose communications with police or arson investigators. The civil suit tried to get information that could not be obtained as part of a criminal investigation.  In my past a lawyer filed a civil suit so he could depose the fire department investigators. Regardless of the lawyer’s intent the discovery ended up causing his client to be arrested and convicted for arson. Trying to get privileged communications just didn’t work and should not work.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.