in Re National Lloyds Insurance Company, 449 S.W.3d 486

Mary Erving filed suit against National Lloyds alleging underpayment of homeowner claims after storms in Cedar Hill (Sept 2011 and June 2012), asserting breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, DTPA and Insurance Code claims.
National Lloyds inspected and paid Erving’s claims; Erving alleges they were undervalued and seeks discovery to prove systemic underpayment.
In discovery Erving requested claim files for: (a) all claims from the prior six years involving three individual adjusters, and (b) all claims from the prior year in Dallas and Tarrant Counties handled by Team One Adjusting and Ideal Adjusting (the firms that handled Erving’s claims), plus identifying data for claimants.
National Lloyds objected as overbroad and irrelevant; the trial court ordered production limited to claims in Cedar Hill arising from the two storms and handled by the two adjusting firms.
The court of appeals denied mandamus relief; National Lloyds sought mandamus from the Texas Supreme Court arguing the trial court abused its discretion in compelling third‑party claim files.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by ordering production of unrelated third‑party claim files	Erving: files will establish a baseline to show adjusters used improper methods, time, or pricing—supporting underpayment/bad faith/fraud claims	National Lloyds: requests are overbroad, burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence about Erving’s claim	Court: Order was overbroad; third‑party claim files were not shown reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence about Erving’s specific claims; mandamus conditionally granted

In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. 2009) (discovery beyond procedural rules is abuse of discretion)
Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995) (overbroad discovery is improper; tailoring required)
Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2009) (‘‘relevant to the subject matter’’ construed broadly)
In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 227 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. 2007) (overbroad discovery limits)
In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (discovery scope constraints)
Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995) (geographic breadth can render discovery overbroad)