Recovery of lawyer fees is an important problem in almost every trial, and especially for policyholders in litigation against their insurers. In almost all cases, the policyholder and its insurer will question whether the policyholder's fees are reasonable and necessary, with the insurer claiming they are not. On Tuesday, February 7, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court heard an oral statement in in the National Lloyds Insurance Company, Wardlaw Claims Service, Inc., and Ideal Adjusting, Inc. Case No. 15-0591, on whether a policyholder seeking refunds lawyer fees should be allowed to detect their insurance company's legal information –
The case came from a state Multilateral disputes that mean that the plaintiff claims that they had been underpaid on their property damage according to hailstorms. In connection with these claims, the applicants also sought to recover their fees, which the insurers challenged on the basis of reasonableness and necessity. The applicants then moved for further discoveries on insurers' own law fees, to compare these fees to their own alleged "unreasonable" lawyer fees. The insurance companies objected, claiming that their own charges were irrelevant (since they did not seek recovery from the plaintiff), and that the disclosure of those charges would violate the lawyer's client and work product privileges.
The trial granted the plaintiffs "the request for detection, but allowed the insurers to edit privileged information. The insurers filed a complaint by mandamus and claimed that the trial had abused their discretionary discretion because their own fees are irrelevant to it Underlying dispute The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals confirmed the judgment of the Court of Justice that the insurer's attorneys fees were detectable – a decision that the Texas Supreme Court will now consider. up-to-date on the result, currently the case serves as an important reminder that what is good for the goose can be good for gander; in other words, discovery requests to the counterparty can open the requesting party for the discovery on the same issue. understand how your argument will play out if you have to reverse the same or the same information.