## IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N O
. 13-0761

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

### I N R E 

### N A T IO N A L 

### L L O Y D S 

### I N S U R A N C E 

### C O M P A N Y 

### , R E L A T O R

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

O N P E T I T I O N F O R W R I T O F M A N D A M U S

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

P ER CURIAM

I n this case involving alleg ations of underpa id insurance claims, we consider whether a trial
court abused its discretion in order ing the defe ndant insurer to produce evidenc e rela ted to insurance claims other than the plaintiff’s. We hold that it did. Acc ording ly , we conditional l y grant mandamus re lief and or der the trial court to withdra w its order c ompelling discove ry . I n September 2011 and June 2012 storms swept through the City of Cedar Hill a nd cause d damag e to Mary Erving ’s home. Erving filed claims with her homeowner ’s insurer, National L loy ds
I nsuranc e Company

. N a

ti o n al L loy ds sent adjusters to inspect Erving ’s residenc e in response to eac h claim. Following those inspections, National L loy ds paid the cla ims.
Concerne d that National L loy ds had underva lued her claims, Erving broug ht suit ag ainst the 1
company . She alleg ed brea ch of con t ra ct , b re ac h of duty of g ood faith and fair dealing , fra ud, conspirac y to commit fra

ud, and violations of the Texas Dec eptive Trade Practice s Act and chapte rs

I n h e r p e t i t i o n , E r v i n g c o m p l a i n e d t h a t N a t i o n a l L l o y d s “ d e n i e d a t l e a s t a p o r t i o n o f b o t h c l a i m s . ” H o w e v e r , 1 i n a m o t i o n t o c o m p e l f i l e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e u n d e r l y i n g d i s c o v e r y d i s p u t e , E r v i n g a s s e r t e d t h a t N a t i o n a l L l o y d s

“ p e r f o r m e d a n o u t c o m e b a s e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f P l a i n t i f f ’ s c l a i m s a n d g r o s s l y u n d e r v a l u e d h e r c l a i m s . ”5 4 1 an d 542 of the Texas I nsuranc e Code. During discovery , Erving reque sted production of al l

claim files from the previous six y ear s involving three individual a djusters. She also reque sted all claim files from the past y ear for proper ties in Dallas and Tarr ant Coun t i es i n v olving Tea m One Adjusting, L L C, and I deal Adjusting, I nc., the two adjusting firms that handled Erving ’s claims.
E rv i n g s oug ht via i nterrog atory the names, addre sses, phone numbers, policy numbers, and claim numbers assoc iated with the re quested c laim files. National L loy ds objected to the reque s t s as overbr oad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that was neither rele vant nor calc ulated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidenc e. Erving moved to compel production. After revie wing the discovery reque sts, the trial court order ed production of the files for claims h an dled by Tea m One and I deal Adjusting. The trial court also limit ed the order to claims rela ted to proper ties in Cedar Hill and to the s t o rm s t h at cause d the damag e to Erving ’s home. National L loy ds filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the court of
appea ls, which denied r elief. N ational L loy ds now seeks ma ndamus relief

in this C ourt. A discovery order t h at co m p els production bey ond the rules of proce dure is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper reme dy

. In re Dee re & Co. , 299 S.W .3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009) (per curia m); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson , 898 S.W .2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (per curia m). The
Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e provi d e fo r discovery of “any matter that is not privileg ed and is rele vant to the subject matter of the pending action.” T E X
. R. C I V
. P. 192.3(a)

. The phrase “re levant
to the subject matter” is to be broadly construed. Ford Motor Co. v. Castil lo , 279 S.W .3d 656, 664 (Tex. 2009). I t is no g round for objection “that the information soug ht will be inadmissible at trial

2i f t h e information soug ht appea rs rea sonably calc ulated to lead to the discovery of admissi b l e evidenc e.” T E X
. R. C I V
. P. 192.3(a)

. Howeve r, even thes e l i bera l bounds have limit s, and discovery reque sts must not be overbr oad. See, e .g. , In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. , 227 S.W .3d 667, 669–70 (Tex. 2007) (per curia m); In re CSX C o r

p
. , 1 2 4 S

. W

. 3d 149, 153 (Tex. 2003) (per curia m). A reque st “is not overbr oad mere ly beca

use [i t] may call for some information of doubtful rele vance ” so long as it is
“re asonably tailored to include only matters rele vant to the case .” Sanderson , 898 S.W .2d at 815. Significa ntly , whether a reque st for discovery is overbr oad is distinct from whether it is burdensome or har assing

. Allstate , 227 S.W .3d at 670. We have held that “[o] verbr oad re quests for irr eleva nt information ar e improper whether they are burdensome or

not.” Id.
I n this case , the trial court’s order compelled production of information rela ting to insurance claims filed by Cedar Hill residents in connec tion with the two storms that damag ed Erving ’s house. The order wa s al s o l i m i ted to claims that wer e assessed by the adjusting firms that assessed the damag e to Erving ’s home. Erving arg ues that “the reque sted production should pr ovide proof one
way or anothe r whe ther the a djusters used the sa me methods; spe nt a n equivalent amount of time; and used the same pricing data when they deter mined Erving ’s claims as compar ed to the claims of her fellow Cedar Hill policy holders.” She also contends that she “nee ds the reque sted information
to prove that the adju s t er s d i d n o t p roper ly inspect her house or value her claims.” She plans to
prove that National L loy ds underva lued her claims by “esta blishing a baseline” and compar ing her claims to that baseline. Er ving a rg ues that “[s]i g nificant diff ere nces w ould . . . evidence bad faith and support other

leg al claims including fra ud.”

3Essentially , then, Erving has proposed to compar e N a ti o n a l L loy ds’ evalua tion of the damag e
to her home with National L loy ds’ evalua tion of the damag e to other hom es t o support her contention that her claims wer e underva lued. But we fail to see how National L loy ds’ overpa y ment, underpa y ment, or proper pay

ment of the claims of unrela ted third parties is probative of its conduct with respe ct to Erving ’s underva luation claims at issue in this case . See In re GMAC Direct Ins. Co. , No. 09-10-00493- CV, 2010 WL 5550672, at * 1 (Tex. App.—B eaumont Dec

. 30, 2010, orig

. proce eding ) (mem. op.) (holding , in the context of plaintiffs’ tort and contra ct claims in connec tion with the adjustment of their homeowner ’s insurance claim, that reque sts for informatio n about damage to other proper

ties that wer e not tailored to include the information “ac tually used in adjusting the [pl aintiffs’] claim” amounted to an improper fishing expedition). This is espec ially so
g iven the many varia

bles associate d with a particular claim, such as whe n the claim wa s filed, the condition of t he property at t he t i m e of fili ng (including the presence of any pree x isting damag e), and the ty pe and extent of damag e inflicted by the cover ed event. Scouring claim files in hopes of finding simil arly situated claimants whose claims wer e evalua ted differ ently from Erving ’s is at best

an “impermissible fishing expedition.” Sanderson , 898 S.W

. 2 d at 815. Wit hout more, the information soug ht doe s not a ppear rea sonably calc ulated to le ad to the discovery of evidenc e that has a tendenc y “to make the exis tence of any fac t that is of conseque nce to the deter mination of the action more probable or less proba ble.” T E X
. R. E V I D . 401; T E X
. R. C I V
. P. 192.3(a). 2

W e d o n o t h o l d t h a t e v i d e n c e o f t h i r d

- p a r t y i n s u r a n c e c l a i m s c a n n e v e r b e r e l e v a n t i n c o v e r a g e l i t i g a t i o n . W e 2
s i m p l y h o l d t h a t , i n t h i s c a s e , o n t h i s p l a i n t i f f ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e r e i s a t b e s t a r e m o t e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s u c h c l a i m s c o u l d l e a d t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e . T h a t p o s s i b i l i t y i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o r e n d e r t h e c l a i m s d i s c o v e r a b l e u n d e r R u l e 1 9 2

. 3 ( a )

. 4Erving arg ues t hat the trial court did not abuse its discretion because its discovery order is

narr owly tailored. Specifica lly , Erving arg ues that the trial court’s discovery order was (1) limit ed
in time, b ec au s e it compelled only production of evidenc e relating to the t wo s torms at i ssue, and (2) limit ed by location, b ec ause it involved only proper ties in Cedar Hill. Erving is corr ect that discovery must be rea sonably limit ed in time and g eog rap h i c s co p e. See Dee re , 299 S.W .3d at 8 20–21 (finding a dis cover y order overbr oad because the t rial court did not impose a “r ea s o n ab l e time limit ” on the order , and the order require d a party to produce documents “g oing back deca des”) ; Dillard Dep’ t Stores, Inc. v. Hall , 909 S.W .2d 491, 4 9 1

– 92 (Tex. 1995) (per curia m) (finding a discovery order overbr oad beca use it compelled production of in ci d ent repor ts in all 227 of the defe ndant’s depar

tment stores, though the plaintiff was injured in only one). But such limit s in and of themselves do not rende r the underlying informa t i o n discovera ble. Be cause the information Erving seeks is not rea sonably calc ulated to lead to the di scover y of admiss ible evidenc e, the tria l
court’s order compelling discovery of such information is nece ssarily overbr oad. T E X
. R. C I V
. P. 192.3(a)

. Ac co rdi ng ly , without hear ing oral arg ument, we conditionally g rant mandamus relief an d direc t the trial court to vaca te its discovery order

. T E X
. R. A P P
. P. 52.8(c)

. We are confide nt the trial court will comply , and the wr it will i ssue only if it fails to do so.

OP INION DELIVERED: October 31, 2014

5