In re National Lloyds Insurance Company, Wardlaw Claims Service, Inc., and Ideal Adjusting, Inc.

1638 Pages·2015·32.38 MB·English

FILED
15-0591
8/7/2015 6:56:57 PM
tex-6406791
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
15-0591
BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK
NO. ______________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN RE NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE
COMPANY, WARDLAW CLAIMS SERVICE, INC.
AND IDEAL ADJUSTING, INC.

Relators,
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
from the 206th District Court, Hidalgo County,
Texas

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Casey Low Scot G. Doyen Monica Valerio Wilkins
State Bar No. 24041363 State Bar No. 00792982 State Bar No.: 24043968
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Dale Wainwright Alasdair A. Roberts Greg Wilkins
State Bar No. 00000049 State Bar No. 24068541 State Bar No.: 00797669
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Elizabeth Kozlow Marcum Doyen Sebesta, Ltd. , LLP Robert L. Florance, IV
[email protected] Paragon Center One State Bar No. 24087520
State Bar No. 24078801 450 Gears Road, [email protected]
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP Suite 350 Orgain Bell & Tucker,
111 Congress Ave., Houston, Texas 77067 LLP
Suite 2300 Telephone: [phone] P.O. Box 1751
Austin, Texas 78701 Facsimile: [phone] Beaumont, Texas 77704
Telephone: [phone] [phone]
Facsimile: (800) 404-3970 Facsimile [phone]

ATTORNEYS FOR RELATORS
IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Relators
National Lloyds Insurance Company (“National Lloyds”)
Wardlaw Claims Service, Inc. (“Wardlaw”)
Ideal Adjusting, Inc. (“Ideal Adjusting”)
Counsel for Relators
Casey Low
State Bar No. 24041363
[email protected]
Dale Wainwright
State Bar No. 00000049
[email protected]
Elizabeth Kozlow Marcum
State Bar No. 24078801
[email protected]
BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP
111 Congress Ave., Suite 2300
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (800) 404-3970
(appeal counsel for all Relators)

Scot G. Doyen
State Bar No. 00792982
[email protected]
Alasdair A. Roberts
State Bar No. 24068541
[email protected]
DOYEN SEBESTA, LTD. , LLP
Paragon Center One
450 Gears Road, Suite 350
Houston, Texas 77067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
(trial and appeal counsel for National Lloyds)

i
Monica Valerio Wilkins
State Bar No.: 24043968
[email protected]
Greg Wilkins
State Bar No.: 00797669
[email protected]
Robert L. Florance, IV
State Bar No. 24087520
[email protected]
ORGAIN BELL & TUCKER, LLP
P.O. Box 1751
Beaumont, Texas 77704
[phone]
[phone] Facsimile
(trial and appeal counsel for Wardlaw and Ideal Adjusting)

Real Parties in Interest
Martin Almaguer
Maricela A. Almaguer
Kelly Dizdar
Mark Dizdar
Dizdar Development
Danny Garcia
Yvonne S. Garcia
Alfredo Ortiz Rodriguez
Alicia M. Rodriguez
Counsel for Real Parties in Interest
Amber Anderson
Molly Bowen
MOSTYN LAW FIRM
3810 W. Alabama Street
Houston, Texas 77027
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

ii
Randal G. Cashiola
CASHIOLA LAW FIRM
2090 Broadway, Suite A
Beaumont, Texas 77701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Respondent
The Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna
206th Judicial District Court
100 N. Closner
Edinburg, Texas 78539

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ....................................... I
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................... VIII
ISSUE PRESENTED ............................................................................ X
APPENDIX & MANDAMUS RECORD ................................................ X
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................... 2
STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................... 5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................... 7
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ..................................................... 8
I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
ORDERING IRRELEVANT ATTORNEYS’ FEE
INFORMATION. .......................................................................... 8
A. An Opposing Party’s Attorneys’ Fees are Not Relevant
To Proving Fees Under Texas Law. .................................... 8
B. The Thirteenth Court’s Split with Authority
Challenges Texas Law. ...................................................... 11
1. The Thirteenth Court’s Position Contradicts the
Arthur Andersen Factors. ......................................... 11
2. The Thirteenth Court’s Position Is Not Justified
by Other “Intangible Factors.” ................................. 14
3. Chief Justice Hecht’s Concurrence In El Apple
Does Not Support the Thirteenth Court’s New
Analysis. ................................................................... 16
II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED
INFORMATION. ........................................................................ 19
iv
III. MANDAMUS RELIEF IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT
AGAINST THE DETRIMENTS IN THIS CASE AND
NUMEROUS FUTURE CASES. ................................................ 20
PRAYER .............................................................................................. 22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................. 25
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .................................................... 26

v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp.,
945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.1997) ........................................................... 10, 11
Duininck Bros., Inc. v. Howe Precast, Inc.,
No. 4:06-CV-441, 2008 WL 4411641 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2008) .......... 8
El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas,
370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012) ...................................................... 9, 15, 16
In re AIG Aviation (Texas), Inc.,
No. 04-04-00291-CV, 2004 WL 1166560 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) ................................................ 1, 6, 7, 8
In re Allstate County Mut. Ins. Co.,
227 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) ............................................. 6
In re CSX Corp.,
124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) ........................................................ 6, 7, 19
In re Deere & Co.,
299 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam) ............................................. 5
In re EI DuPont de Nemours and Co.,
136 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. 2004) ......................................................... viii, 20
In re Gen. Agents Ins. Co. of Am., Inc.,
224 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, orig.
proceeding) .......................................................................................... 18
In re Graco Children’s Prods., Inc.,
210 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) ......................................... viii
In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co.,
449 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam) ......................................viii, 5
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) ............................................................ 6, 19
vi
In re Texas Mut. Ins. Co.,
358 S.W.3d 869 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012,
orig. proceeding) .................................................................. 1, 6, 7, 8, 14
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Crowley,
899 S.W.2d 399 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995,
orig. proceeding) .......................................................................... passim
McLain v. Lufkin Indus., Inc.,
649 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2011) ............................................................... 15
Smith v. Patrick W.Y. Tam Trust,
296 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. 2009) .................................................................. 8
Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson,
898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) ............................................. 5
STATUTES
Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(b) ................................................................... viii
RULES
Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 1.04(b) .............................................. 9
Tex. R. Civ. P. 167 ................................................................................... 11
TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a) .................................................................... 6, 8, 17
TEX. R. EVID. 401 ....................................................................................... 8
TEX. R. EVID. 503 ..................................................................................... 17
Tex. R. App. P. 52 .................................................................................. viii
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6 ....................................................................... viii
vii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Cases Four suits against property insurance carrier,
independent adjusting firms, and individual
adjusters for breach of contract and extra-
contractual claims for underpayment of
property damage following two hail storms.
Trial Court The Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna
206th Judicial District Court
100 N. Closner
Edinburg, Texas 78539
Trial Court’s Action Real Parties in Interest/Plaintiffs were
granted leave to serve requests for production
and interrogatories seeking discovery of
Relators’/Defendants’ attorneys’ fee
information. (R.0006) Relators objected on
the grounds of relevance and privilege, which
the special master Roberto Ramirez overruled
on April 21, 2015. (R.0009) On April 29,
2015, the trial court adopted the special
master’s recommendations overruling
Relator’s objections and requiring them to
answer the interrogatories and produce
documents by May 15, 2015. (R.0001-R.0005)
Court of Appeals Relator filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
in the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth
District of Texas on May 12, 2015. The
Thirteenth Court denied Relators’ petition on
July 14, 2015 in a memorandum opinion
authored by Justice Gina M. Benavides, and
joined by Justices Garza and Longoria. In re
Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., No. 13-15-00219-CV,
2015 WL 4380929 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi
July 14, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). (App. E).
viii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has the power to grant the writ of mandamus sought
in this petition under authority of article V, section 3 of the Texas
Constitution, section 22.002 of the Texas Government Code, and Rule
52 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mandamus is available
when a trial court compels overbroad and irrelevant discovery. See,
e.g., In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (per
curiam); In re Graco Children’s Prods., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex.
2006) (per curiam). This includes discovery of irrelevant information
related to a party’s attorney-client relationship. See, e.g., MCI
Telecommunications Corp. v. Crowley, 899 S.W.2d 399, 403 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 1995, orig. proceeding). Mandamus is also available
to protect against disclosure of confidential or privileged information.
See, e.g., In re EI DuPont de Nemours and Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 223
(Tex. 2004).

ix