## Facts

- Kelly (plaintiff) sued her automobile insurer, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (Nationwide) (defendant), seeking coverage for damage to her truck.
- Nationwide asserted that Kelly’s insurance policy was not in effect when the truck was damaged.
- Nationwide attached interrogatories to its answer.
- Interrogatory 2 asked whether Kelly was the sole proprietor of the trucking business by which the truck was owned; Kelly provided a vague response.
- Interrogatory 6 asked where the truck was when the damage occurred; Kelly answered that she did not know because someone else was driving the truck at the time.
- Interrogatories 10, 12, and 15–33 asked about matters that occurred after the damage; Kelly stated she did not know the answers to those questions.
- Although Kelly answered all interrogatories, Nationwide moved to compel more complete answers.

## Issues

1. What is the permissible scope of interrogatories in civil discovery—may they seek nonprivileged facts relevant to the issues, or are they limited to the pleadings?
2. May interrogatories be used to require a party to reveal in advance how she will prove her case or what her witnesses will say?
3. Where a party answers “I do not know,” when (if ever) must the party provide a more complete answer—particularly as to business ownership (Interrogatory 2), the truck’s location (Interrogatory 6), and post-loss matters (Interrogatories 10, 12, and 15–33)?

## Decision

- The court recognized that interrogatories may be used to obtain nonprivileged, admissible facts that are relevant to the issues in dispute, and are not confined solely to the pleadings.
- The court also held that interrogatories may not be used to force disclosure of trial preparation in the form of how the opponent will establish the claim or defense, including what witnesses will testify to.
- The court granted Nationwide’s motion in part and required Kelly to provide a clearer answer to Interrogatory 2 regarding whether she was the sole proprietor of the trucking business that owned the truck.
- The court denied the motion as to Interrogatory 6 and the post-loss interrogatories where Kelly had responded in good faith that she did not know the requested information.

## Legal Principles

- Interrogatories may seek nonprivileged facts that are relevant to the issues and would be admissible in evidence; they are not limited to facts expressly pleaded.
- Discovery cannot be used to compel an opponent to disclose trial strategy, including the manner in which the opponent plans to prove the case or what witnesses are expected to say.
- A party may answer that she does not know when the information is not within her knowledge; a court may accept that response if it appears to be made in good faith.
- When an interrogatory asks for a direct, concrete fact central to a disputed issue—such as the ownership status of the insured business affecting coverage—the court may require a more definite answer.

## Conclusion

In this coverage dispute, the court treated interrogatories as a tool for obtaining relevant, admissible facts, but refused to allow them to be used as a substitute for compelled disclosure of trial preparation. It ordered a clearer response only on the ownership/sole-proprietorship interrogatory tied to the coverage defense, while accepting Kelly’s good-faith lack-of-knowledge answers to the remaining interrogatories.


Kelly v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 188 N.E.2d 445 (1963)