Opinion

This petition asked the Court to review a trial court's order that had permitted discovery into the specific claims handled by three insurance adjusters (the ones involved in this case), for a specific area (the one in which the plaintiff's home sat), for a particular storm (the one causing this damage).

The trial court concluded that was narrow enough, and the court of appeals did not disagree.

The Supreme Court held that, even though some attempt had been made to narrow the scope, the result was still too broad. It explained that the request was overbroad because there was not a link between the kind of information that might be uncovered and the plaintiffs' theory that their own claim had been undervalued. It saw too many confounding variables:

[W]e fail to see how National Lloyds’ overpayment, underpayment, or proper payment of the claims of unrelated third parties is probative of its conduct with respect to Erving’s undervaluation claims at issue in this case. This is especially so given the many variables associated with a particular claim, such as when the claim was filed, the condition of the property at the time of filing (including the presence of any preexisting damage), and the type and extent of damage inflicted by the covered event. Scouring claim files in hopes of finding similarly situated claimants whose claims were evaluated differently from Erving’s is at best an “impermissible fishing expedition.”

In a footnote, the Court explained that it was not presenting a blanket rule against all discovery of third-party claims. Instead, it "simply hold[s] that, in this case, on this plaintiff's allegations," the request was too remote.