In re USAA General Indemnity Company

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court addresses whether an insured may depose an insurance carrier’s corporate representative in a suit for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. The Court holds that the deposition is not categorically barred by lack of personal knowledge or proportionality concerns, but its scope must be limited to matters relevant to the disputed liability, damages, and coverage issues and may not extend to unasserted or abated bad-faith claims. The Court grants mandamus relief in part because some noticed topics exceeded the permissible scope.

Holdings

1. The discovery rules do not categorically prohibit a UIM insured from deposing the carrier's corporate representative merely because the representative lacks personal knowledge of the underlying accident or damages.
2. Proportionality concerns did not categorically foreclose the deposition on the record presented, because USAA failed to support its objections with evidence showing that the deposition would be unreasonably cumulative or that its burden outweighed its likely benefit.
3. The deposition may address disputed issues bearing on USAA's defenses, Bernal's liability or underinsured status, and the existence and amount of Wearden's damages, but it may not extend generally to the UIM policy, all conditions precedent, offsets at the pre-liability-and-damages stage, claims-handling matters, privileged information, or other matters beyond the claims at issue.
4. USAA was entitled to partial mandamus relief because the trial court compelled discovery beyond the permissible scope and USAA lacked an adequate appellate remedy for the resulting burden.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Texas discovery rules categorically prohibit a UIM insured from deposing the carrier's corporate representative when the carrier's employees lack personal knowledge of the underlying accident and damages.
2. Whether proportionality concerns under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.4 required quashing the deposition because the information was cumulative, obtainable from other sources, or more burdensome than beneficial.
3. What subjects fall within the permissible scope of a corporate-representative deposition in a UIM benefits action.
4. Whether USAA had an adequate remedy by appeal from the order compelling discovery.

Disposition

writ_granted