In Re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Lindsey Nicole Dessart

In Re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Lindsey Nicole Dessart

Because UIM benefits are contingent on a judicial finding of the third-party’s liability and the insured’s damages, extracontractual Insurance Code discovery is improper until the insured establishes entitlement to UIM benefits; the trial court abused its discretion by denying State Farm’s motions to abate extracontractual claims and to quash the corporate representative deposition where State Farm produced all nonprivileged claim documents, stipulated to matters within its personal knowledge, and substantiated with evidence that the deposition’s burden and expense outweighed its likely benefit; mandamus relief is appropriate because no adequate appellate remedy exists.

Citation
In Re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Lindsey Nicole Dessart
Parties
Relator; Insurer: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Relator; Insured/plaintiff: Lindsey Nicole Dessart
Court
Texas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
United States
Judgment Date
25 April 2025
Case Number
23-0755
Procedural Posture
Original Proceeding for Writ of Mandamus / Mandamus Review of Trial Court Orders Denying Motions to Abate Extracontractual Claims and to Quash Deposition Notice
Outcome
Conditionally granted mandamus relief
Legal Topics
Underinsured Motorist (uim) Coverage, Abatement, Bifurcation, Proportionality of Discovery, Corporate Representative Deposition, Declaratory Judgment (udja), Insurance Code Extracontractual Claims, Mandamus
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Discovery Appellate Review Tort Law Underinsured Motorist (uim) Coverage Abatement Bifurcation +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Relator; Insurer

Lindsey Nicole Dessart

Relator; Insured/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Original Proceeding for Writ of Mandamus / Mandamus Review of Trial Court Orders Denying Motions to Abate Extracontractual Claims and to Quash Deposition Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extracontractual Insurance Code discovery may proceed during the initial UIM coverage/car-crash phase
  2. 2 Whether the noticed deposition of the insurer’s corporate representative must be quashed on proportionality grounds
  3. 3 Whether abatement or severance of extracontractual claims is required when UIM coverage is unresolved

Ratio Decidendi

Because UIM benefits are contingent on a judicial finding of the third-party’s liability and the insured’s damages, extracontractual Insurance Code discovery is improper until the insured establishes entitlement to UIM benefits; the trial court abused its discretion by denying State Farm’s motions to abate extracontractual claims and to quash the corporate representative deposition where State Farm produced all nonprivileged claim documents, stipulated to matters within its personal knowledge, and substantiated with evidence that the deposition’s burden and expense outweighed its likely benefit; mandamus relief is appropriate because no adequate appellate remedy exists.

Court Disposition

Conditionally granted mandamus relief

Orders

  • Vacate trial court orders denying State Farm’s motions to abate the extracontractual Insurance Code claims and to quash the corporate-representative deposition notice
  • Grant State Farm’s motions to abate the extracontractual claims pending resolution of the UDJA/coverage (car-crash) trial