AUSTIN - On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted Liberty County Mutual Insurance’s writ of mandamus, ordering a trial court to vacate an order quashing deposition notices and levying sanctions.
According to the high court’s opinion, following a car wreck in April 2017, Thalia Harris settled with the other driver for his policy limits. She then sued her insurer for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. The insurer disputed the amount of Harris’s alleged damages and sought production from her primary care physician of Harris’s medical records.
“The request covered a time period of fifteen years—later narrowed to ten years—during which Harris was involved in five other car accidents, some of which caused injuries similar to those she sustained in the April 2017 accident,” the opinion states. “Harris moved to quash the discovery and for sanctions. The trial court granted the motion and ordered the insurer’s counsel to pay $2,000 as a sanction.
Court records show Liberty sought a writ of mandamus, asserting the trial court abused its discretion by quashing the requested discovery.
“We agree and conditionally grant the writ,” the opinion states. “We are confident the trial court will comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not.”
Justices found the discovery order denied Liberty “a reasonable opportunity to develop a defense that goes to the heart of its case.”
The high court also set aside the trial court’s award of sanctions.
“Harris’s only asserted basis for sanctions was Liberty’s allegedly 'frivolous' discovery requests,” the opinion states. “Because we conclude the trial court clearly abused its discretion by quashing Liberty’s discovery requests, there is nothing in the record to support the sanctions order.”
Court records further show that Harris filed a response, asserting Liberty’s “petition is not supported by any evidence that the trial court could have considered, or that would be admissible (or relevant) under existing law.
“The trial court therefore could not have clearly abused its discretion by denying Relators' claims for relief,” the brief states.
Supreme Court case No. 22-0321