In 5th and Main Condominium Association, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company of New York, 2026 WL 1103277 (M.D. Tenn. 2026), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the insured’s motion to compel discovery seeking information about alleged “mismatched exclusions” contained in other insurance policies issued by the insurer. The Court held that discovery into other policy forms, endorsements, or exclusions not contained in the policy at issue was not relevant to the interpretation of the insured’s policy and disproportionate to the needs of the case.
The decision reinforces the principle that coverage disputes turn on the language of the specific policy issued to the insured, not on how insurers may have drafted or applied exclusions in other policies for other insureds.
Facts
The insurer issued a commercial property policy to the condominium association. On March 3, 2020, a tornado damaged the building’s roof and exterior, including hundreds of aluminum composite material panels. The insurer paid more than $2 million for covered damage but declined to pay for replacement of the entire panel system, agreeing instead to replace only the panels that were physically damaged.
The insured commenced suit asserting claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and statutory bad faith under Tennessee law. Central to the dispute was whether the policy required replacement of the entire panel system, even where only some of the panels sustained damage.
During discovery, the insured served interrogatories and requests for production seeking information about whether the insurer had ever drafted or used policy language commonly referred to as a “mismatch exclusion,” which typically excludes coverage for replacing undamaged materials due to color or aesthetic mismatch. The insurer objected, stating that the policy issued to the insured did not contain such an exclusion and that information concerning other policies was irrelevant and burdensome.
Analysis
a. Relevance Limited to the Policy at Issue
The Court held that discovery into mismatch exclusions contained in policies issued to other insureds had no bearing on the interpretation of the policy at issue. The Court emphasized that the central question in the litigation was whether the language of this specific policy obligated the insurer to replace the entire aluminum panel system.
Relying on precedent from the federal courts in Tennessee, the Court explained that positions taken by insurers in other claims or policies depend on different facts, policy language, and circumstances. Even if insurers had taken inconsistent positions elsewhere, such evidence would not aid in interpreting the policy before the Court and would amount to nothing more than a fishing expedition.
Although the parties disputed whether extrinsic evidence could be relevant absent ambiguity, the Court did not reach that issue, instead concluding that the insured had not shown how discovery into other policies bore on interpretation of the policy actually issued.
b. Disproportionality of the Requested Discovery
Even assuming some marginal relevance, the Court concluded that the discovery sought was disproportionate to the needs of the case. The insurer submitted an affidavit explaining that a search for all potentially responsive forms, endorsements, and exclusions would require multiple employees and take days or weeks to complete.
While acknowledging the significant amount of damages claimed, the Court determined that this did not outweigh the burden imposed by the discovery requests, particularly given the limited utility of the information sought. The Court found that permitting such discovery would impose a substantial burden with little likelihood of advancing resolution of the core coverage dispute.
Conclusion
5th and Main Condominium Association underscores that discovery in insurance coverage litigation is not a vehicle for probing the insurer’s handling of other policies and claims. Courts will confine discovery to the language of the policy actually issued to the insured and will reject attempts to use unrelated policy forms or underwriting practices to influence contract interpretation. This decision serves as an important reminder that relevance and proportionality remain meaningful limits on discovery in first-party property disputes.