Navigating Claims Handling and the Boundaries of Pre-Suit Discovery in Texas

In a significant decision, a Texas appellate court has intervened in a legal maneuver by a driver attempting to examine the claims handling practices of two insurance companies through a pre-suit discovery petition. The Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont delivered a unified opinion on April 3, 2025, conditionally issuing a writ of mandamus in favor of Berkley Regional Insurance Company (BRIC), Berkley National Insurance Company (BNIC), and their claims representative Brittany Cusack. This judgment essentially halted the attempt by Walter Naymola Jr., who was involved in a multi-vehicle accident, to leverage the legal process to gain pre-litigation insights. The court found that the desired information was already accessible through existing litigation, specifically the Edwards lawsuit that had emerged following the incident.

The incident in question traces back to June 22, 2022, when Naymola was driving a vehicle owned by National Tank & Equipment, LLC (NTE), covered by both a business auto liability policy from BRIC and a commercial umbrella policy from BNIC. Subsequent to the accident, while Naymola was incapacitated in the hospital, Berkley's representatives allegedly acquired settlement releases from other individuals involved without Naymola's knowledge. This development led to a lawsuit filed in January 2024 by Vanessa Edwards, Gabrielle Eastland, Dezman Parkerson, and Lynsey Parkerson against Naymola, challenging the legitimacy of those releases. Naymola responded by filing a Rule 202 petition, seeking extensive pre-suit depositions and document production from BRIC, BNIC, Cusack, and an unnamed third party to explore potential tort claims tied to the procurement of the settlement agreements.

Berkley opposed Naymola's petition, arguing that the claims were speculative and premature. They contended that the Rule 202 petition was an inappropriate mechanism for the pre-litigation retrieval of documents and depositions, especially since Naymola was already part of the Edwards lawsuit where the standard discovery processes applied. Berkley highlighted that they had already cooperated by providing documents and a privilege log in the ongoing litigation. Nonetheless, the trial court decided in Naymola's favor in August 2024, compelling Berkley and Cusack to prepare witnesses for depositions and make necessary documents available in advance. The Ninth Court's subsequent ruling reaffirmed Berkley's stance, emphasizing Rule 202's limited scope and its role as a supplementary tool rather than a primary strategy to circumvent existing discovery procedures.

The appellate court held that the trial court overstepped by granting the use of Rule 202 to obtain discovery materials already accessible through established litigation channels. It highlighted that Naymola had not adequately demonstrated an inability to gather the necessary information within the framework of the Edwards lawsuit or justified the urgency for depositions preceding a new lawsuit filing. The decision directed the trial court to revoke its order, clarifying the procedural constraints and reinforcing that pre-suit discovery should remain a narrowly confined tool. This case serves as a critical reminder of the legal intricacies in insurance claims handling, particularly regarding third-party settlements, and the importance of transparency and involvement of all insured parties. It highlights potential legal risks when navigating such settlements without clear communication and strategic legal alignment.