In yet another UIM case in which plaintiffs are seeking to depose an insurer’s corporate representative and adjusters, the Texas Supreme Court has stayed a trial court order denying the insurer’s motion to quash and compelling the depositions.
In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Robert Nash, and Yulonda Wilson (No. 23-0975; stay order issued December 18, 2023) has substantially the same facts as a case we previously reported, In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Lindsey Nicole Dessart (No. 23-0755). TCJL filed an amicus curiae brief in that case last October in support of State Farm’s petition for writ of mandamus. The issues in these cases are part of the fallout from SCOTX’s ruling in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Irwin, 627 S.W.3d 263 (Tex. 2021), in which a divided court permitted plaintiffs to pursue UIM claims in a declaratory judgment action under Chapter 36, CPRC. The problem is that plaintiffs are asserting both the dec action and extracontractual claims (bad faith) and persuading trial courts (these cases are from Dallas County), rather than abating the extracontractual claims until the underinsured motorist’s liability is established, to allow discovery on both theories to proceed at the same time. Plaintiffs then seek to compel depositions of corporate representatives and adjusters on subjects they know nothing about, violating the proportionality requirement of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.4.
A third nearly identical case is likewise pending before the Court, In re State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and Robert Borowec, (No. 23-0945; stay ordered issued December 6, 2023). The Court has requested responses in all three cases.
