David Everton, Amanda Everton, and Jorge Jacobo Orozco Sr. v. Lydia Maricelo Taboada, Joey "Sergio" Soto, and Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Texas considered an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction and a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the denial of a motion to disqualify insurer-selected counsel. The court held that the appellants failed to establish a clear abuse of discretion concerning counsel disqualification or temporary injunctive relief. It affirmed the trial court’s orders and denied mandamus relief.

Holdings

1. The Evertons lacked standing to seek disqualification of Taboada's carrier-selected counsel under the independent-counsel rule because they were strangers to the insurance contract and neither alleged nor established privity or third-party-beneficiary status.
2. The Evertons did not establish with specificity that Taboada's carrier-selected counsel or law firm violated Rule 1.06(b), and they failed to demonstrate actual prejudice requiring disqualification.
3. Although Orozco, as an insured and policyholder, had standing to enforce the insurance policy and invoke the independent-counsel rule, he did not show that the rule required disqualification because he had already retained independent counsel.
4. Orozco failed to establish with specificity that Taboada's carrier-selected counsel violated Rule 1.06(b) and failed to show actual prejudice, particularly because he had independent counsel and did not allege that Taboada's counsel represented him.
5. The appellants failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the temporary injunction because the record contained no reporter's record showing what evidence, if any, was presented at the injunction hearing.
6. The trial court's probable-right finding in the agreed temporary injunction did not carry over to the later contested injunction because the two injunctions addressed different conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Evertons had standing to seek disqualification of Taboada's carrier-selected counsel under the independent-counsel rule when they were not parties to or third-party beneficiaries of the insurance policy.
2. Whether the Evertons and Orozco established with specificity a violation of Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.06(b) and actual prejudice warranting disqualification of Taboada's counsel.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a temporary injunction restricting Taboada's and Orozco's communications with the insurer and carrier-selected counsel.

Disposition

affirmed