In Re: Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. the State of Texas, 12-24-00191-CV

Tomas Hernandez sued Mewbourne Oil Company (Mewbourne) and others for personal injuries sustained while working at an oil and gas well; Mewbourne's contractor Greene’s Energy Group’s insurer, Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. (Starr), became involved as Mewbourne’s additional insured.
Starr agreed to defend Mewbourne under a reservation of rights, leading Mewbourne to retain independent counsel due to perceived conflicts of interest.
Multiple law firms were retained by Mewbourne for its defense, incurring over $4 million in legal costs.
After Starr refused to reimburse Mewbourne for its defense costs, Mewbourne sued Starr for breach of the insurance contract and Texas Insurance Code violations; summary judgment was entered for Mewbourne on liability.
Starr, seeking to challenge the defense costs, subpoenaed the law firms for their complete defense files; Mewbourne moved to quash based on privilege, and the trial court granted the motion, barring production.
Starr filed a petition for writ of mandamus to overturn the trial court’s order quashing the subpoenas; the appellate court denied the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether law firms’ defense files are protected by privilege	Files sought are privileged (attorney-client/work-product)	Common interest or waiver makes files discoverable	Files are per se privileged and not discoverable
Whether privilege has been waived by offensive use	Privilege is not waived; invoices and supporting docs disclosed	Plaintiff seeks damages, waives privilege by seeking relief	No waiver; info not outcome determinative, nor only evidence
Whether trial court abused discretion in quashing subpoenas	Scope of requested files is protected, not subject to discovery	Trial court should allow discovery to contest fees	No abuse of discretion; broad requests justly quashed
Whether Starr had adequate remedy by appeal	Not addressed directly; focus on privilege	No adequate remedy without files; need to contest fees	Mandamus relief denied; appellate remedy adequate

In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2007) (sets mandamus as extraordinary remedy requiring no adequate appellate remedy and clear abuse of discretion)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (trial court’s discretion in discovery and mandamus standards)
In re National Lloyds Ins. Co., 532 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. 2017) (attorney’s entire litigation file is privileged per se)
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Valdez, 863 S.W.2d 458 (Tex. 1993) (work-product doctrine protects entire files)
Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2007) (insurer’s failure to defend; damages include reasonable defense costs)
Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. 2019) (standard for proving reasonableness of attorney’s fees)
Republic Ins. Co. v. Davis, 856 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. 1993) (offensive-use waiver of privilege – requirements for finding waiver)