Victoria Roberts alleges she was injured in a car crash caused by another driver, was paid that driver's $30,000 policy limits, and contends the driver was underinsured, so she seeks underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under her State Farm policy.¹ She sued State Farm for a declaration of the validity and amount of the UIM benefits to which she is entitled and also alleged that State Farm and its adjuster, Betty Genale Thomas, violated the Insurance Code in handling her claim (extracontractual claims).² State Farm does not dispute that the policy was in effect, that Roberts is a covered person, that the crash was an accident, and that the policy carries $50,000 in UIM benefits subject to conditions precedent; the disputed issues on the declaratory claim are the other driver's liability, the extent of her injuries, and whether he was underinsured.³

State Farm moved to sever and abate the extracontractual claims until the declaratory claim was tried; Roberts opposed, arguing that the Court's earlier State Farm decision allows only bifurcation into a second trial before the same jury, and the trial court denied the motion.¹ Roberts noticed depositions of a State Farm corporate representative and of Thomas, and State Farm moved to quash them as disproportionate under Rule of Civil Procedure 192.4, filing a team manager's declaration and the 1,789-page nonprivileged claim file; the trial court denied the motions, compelled the depositions, and, separately, quashed State Farm's depositions on written questions seeking records from Roberts's medical and emergency providers.² The court of appeals denied mandamus on March 6, 2024, with Justice Miskel dissenting from the denial of a stay, and State Farm and Thomas petitioned this Court on March 7, 2024; the Court stayed the depositions the next day.³ The Court denied the petition per curiam on April 25, 2025, the same day it decided No. 23-0755.⁴

Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) after the court of appeals denied relief; decided per curiam together with No. 23-0755 on April 25, 2025.⁵

State Farm and Thomas present three issues: whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to abate the statutory claims until after trial on the declaratory claim; whether it abused its discretion by denying the motions to quash the corporate-representative and adjuster depositions under Rule 192.4's proportionality requirements; and whether it abused its discretion by precluding State Farm from obtaining records from Roberts's treating and emergency providers.¹ The Court addressed the first two, noting that the third had been resolved by Roberts's counsel's representation that those objections would be withdrawn.²

The per curiam opinion states no standard of review. Relators seeking mandamus must show that the trial court abused its discretion and that they have no adequate remedy by appeal, which State Farm argues it lacks when required to conduct discovery on claims that would be moot if Roberts does not establish her entitlement to UIM benefits.¹

Relators (State Farm and Thomas): The order denying abatement is inconsistent with the Court's earlier State Farm decision, which requires abatement of extracontractual discovery until the insured establishes entitlement to recover from the underinsured motorist, and State Farm's concern is not whether the claims are severed or bifurcated.¹ The depositions do not meet the proportionality requirements of Rule 192.4, because coverage is undisputed and Thomas has no relevant knowledge of the declaratory claim and is not a defendant on it.² The trial court also erred in barring State Farm from obtaining records from Roberts's providers.³

Real party in interest (Roberts): The filings reviewed show that Roberts opposed severance and abatement in the trial court by arguing that extracontractual claims can only be bifurcated into a second trial.⁴ She filed no response in this Court; her counsel wrote a letter representing that objections to the medical-records discovery would be withdrawn after In re Liberty County Mutual.⁵

State Farm argued that its case is nearly identical to five mandamus proceedings already pending in which the Court stayed the discovery and requested briefing, and asked for a stay of the depositions scheduled for March 11, 2024.¹ The Court noted that the parties acknowledge that the issues are the same as those it decided in No. 23-0755.²

None. The docket shows no amicus filings.

Holding

Because the issues are the same as those the Court addressed in No. 23-0755, the trial court should have an opportunity to revisit its rulings with the Court's guidance, and mandamus is denied without prejudice to State Farm's again seeking the same relief if necessary.¹

Reasoning

In No. 23-0755 the Court gave guidance by "establishing an easily administrable sever- or bifurcate-and-abate rule in the UIM context" and by providing "a roadmap for how a UIM insurer could support its proportionality concerns," while recognizing that proportionality complaints are decided case by case.² With that guidance the trial court should have an opportunity to revisit its rulings on abatement and the depositions.³ The trial court's sanction orders, which appear to rest at least partly on State Farm's motions to quash the depositions, are challenged in a separate petition that the Court also denied to allow reconsideration.⁴

Disposition

The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to State Farm's subsequently seeking the same relief if necessary; it likewise denied without prejudice the petition in No. 24-1052 and a dozen other pending petitions raising the same or similar issues, Nos. 23-0945, 23-0973, 23-0975, 23-0977, 24-0215, 24-0311, 24-0341, 24-0380, 24-0658, 24-0972, 24-1032, and 25-0126.⁵

Vote Breakdown

Per curiam opinion of the Court.⁶