In a decision that is being watched throughout the state, a Nashville trial court has ruled that the existence and amount of insurance coverage in a tort case was relevant, and that the plaintiff had a right to this information. Noting that the issues of relevance and admissability are not co-equal, and that information that is discovable may not be admissable at trial, the court held that this information is particularly useful given the Supreme Court's current focus on alternative dispute resolution, and the fact that the insurance company is the controlling party in the litigation even though it is not a party to the lawsuit. Presently, the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a defendant to disclose the existence or limits of a policy, although this information is required to be disclosed under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sharon Green v. Nashville Otolaryngology Consultants, 23 TAM 25-52 (TC Davidson Circuit, 6/10/98).