in Re Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, 617 S.W.3d 635

Background

Reynaldo Arredondo was injured in an automobile collision with Daniel Guzman; Arredondo settled with Guzman/the tortfeasor and sued his insurer, Allstate, for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits.
Arredondo served notice to depose Allstate’s corporate representative on 12 broad topics (policy terms, investigations, claims handling, defenses, damages model, settlement negotiations, etc.).
Allstate moved to quash, arguing many topics were irrelevant to the UIM claim, the representative lacked personal knowledge, some topics sought protected work product, and the deposition was unduly burdensome.
The trial court denied the motion to quash and later ordered the deposition on all 12 topics; Allstate petitioned for mandamus relief after the court compelled the deposition.
The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief in part and denied it in part: it allowed a corporate-rep deposition limited to matters relevant to the tortfeasor’s liability, the insured’s damages, and Allstate’s defensive contentions, but held multiple topics must be quashed as beyond scope or privileged.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of corporate-rep deposition in UIM case	Arredondo: deposition of insurer rep is permissible to prove triggering facts for UIM coverage	Allstate: only tortfeasor liability, insured damages, and underinsured status are relevant; rep lacks relevant knowledge	Deposition allowed but narrowly limited to insurer’s contentions and evidence on liability and damages; broad topics beyond that are improper
Relevance of policy specifics, coverage requirements, and claims-handling (topics 2–7, 11, 12)	Arredondo: seeks policy and investigation info to prove coverage	Allstate: those topics are irrelevant until liability/damages are determined; relate to claims handling and premature	Topics 2–7, 11, and 12 are outside scope and must be quashed as irrelevant to the pending UIM claim
Discovery of "possible defenses not yet raised" (topic 9)	Arredondo: entitled to learn Allstate’s defenses	Allstate: topic seeks counsel mental impressions/work product and is privileged	Topic 9 seeks core work product and is protected; not discoverable absent heavy showing of substantial need (not made)
Undue burden/duplicative discovery and personal knowledge of rep	Arredondo: representative’s lack of first-hand knowledge is not a proper bar to deposition	Allstate: burdensome; plaintiff has superior access to medical records; rep will lack personal knowledge	Court agreed rep likely lacks first-hand knowledge but allowed testimony on relevant contentions; Allstate waived some undue-burden arguments by not developing them below, so mandamus relief not granted on that ground
Laches defense to mandamus	Arredondo: Allstate delayed in seeking mandamus so relief should be barred	Allstate: sought reconsideration and then mandamus; delay justified	Court: laches does not bar mandamus here because Arredondo showed no detrimental reliance from the delay

Key Cases Cited

Brainard v. Trinity Univ. Ins. Co., 216 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2006) (UIM coverage depends on third‑party liability and damages before insurer’s duty to pay arises)
Liberty Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. (Tex. App. decisions), 537 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017) (compelling discovery unrelated to liability/damages in UIM case is an abuse)
Liberty Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., 557 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018) (limit corporate‑rep deposition to issues of liability and damages; avoid overly broad topics)
In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 532 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. 2017) (scope of discovery is broad but must be reasonably tailored to lead to admissible evidence)
In re N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2018) (trial court abuses discretion if it orders discovery beyond procedural limits)
In re Bexar Cty. Crim. Dist. Atty’s Office, 224 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. 2007) (core work product—attorney mental impressions—is absolutely protected)