Court Opinion

ID: 9717065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:57:14.068058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:51.008436
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The events giving rise to the plaintiffs’ suit against American Casualty have fully matured. There was a prior suit for benefits that was settled. The suit underlying this proceeding includes claims for the alleged improper denial of benefits that caused that prior suit to be filed. Discovery, with regard to that claim, indeed trial, could go forward with the usual defenses, etc.
But subsequent to the events that resulted in the first settlement regarding benefits, the plaintiffs sought additional benefits, i.e., made new claims for additional or different benefits. Plaintiffs also filed the underlying suit regarding their *930prior claim for benefits. The parties agreed to an abatement of the underlying suit pending an administrative resolution of the new claims for additional benefits. The new claims for additional benefits have not yet been fully resolved.
The issue presented by the plaintiffs to the trial court is whether they should be allowed to go forward with discovery in their pending suit, or should they continue to wait for a resolution of the new claims for benefits. If the new claims for benefits are resolved favorably to the plaintiffs in the administrative proceeding, it appears the plaintiffs intend to add claims to the underlying suit for the wrongful denial of those benefits.
The record shows that what the plaintiffs want to do is go forward on their existing and ripe allegations and no longer wait for the administrative disposition of new claims that may give rise to additional allegations of breaches of duties owed by the carrier. The trial court exercised its discretion and lifted the abatement, but stopped short of lifting it for all purposes as the plaintiffs had requested, by lifting the abatement only for discovery, not for trial.
The relator specifically asked if that included discovery as to the new claims for benefits over which the court does not yet have jurisdiction. The court responded, ‘You can if you want to. You don’t have to if you don’t want to.”
If the plaintiffs seek discovery that is beyond the scope of their existing allegations that are ripe for resolution in the underlying proceeding, the relator will have the legal remedy available to ask the trial court to limit the scope of discovery. Review of the ruling on that prospective motion must wait for another day.
I find nothing about the court’s partial lifting of the abatement order to permit discovery on existing and ripe allegations of plaintiffs’ case that was an abuse of discretion. Further, I find that if the plaintiffs attempt to expand discovery beyond its proper scope, the relator would have an adequate legal remedy that has not yet been exercised.
I would not grant, conditionally or otherwise, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.