Are umbrella insurance policies confidential documents that can be subject to protection from further disclosure through a protective order? The Dallas Court of Appeals recently answered this question, refusing to disturb a trial court’s ruling that umbrella policies are not confidential documents.

In In re Lyft, Inc., No. 05-23-00079-CV, 2023 WL 3000565 (Tex. App.—Dallas, Apr. 19, 2023), three passengers sued Lyft and the Lyft driver for injuries allegedly sustained in a car crash involving the Lyft driver.  As part of routine discovery, plaintiffs requested copies of documents from Lyft and the other defendants.  At Lyft’s request and the trial court’s prodding, Lyft and the other parties entered into a protective order that would allow Lyft to designate certain records as confidential and then produce those documents to plaintiffs and the other parties.

When Lyft marked its umbrella insurance policies as confidential and subject to the protective order, one of the plaintiffs, Grant Allen, challenged the designation.  The trial court, Dallas County Court at Law No. 5, ruled that the policies were not confidential and not subject to the protective order.  Upon rehearing Lyft’s motion, a different trial court judge affirmed the ruling, requiring Lyft disclose the excess policies without designating them as confidential.

Lyft then sought review by the Dallas Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring production of the insurance policies. The Dallas Court of Appeals disagreed, denying Lyft’s petition for writ of mandamus and thereby, not disturbing the trial court’s ruling that Lyft produce the excess policy without the confidential designation.

What was behind Lyft’s requests to keep the excess policies confidential? It was not the claim brought by Grant Allen or the other two plaintiffs involved in the claim, as those litigants would have received the policies under the protective order.  Instead, it was the overriding concern that the policies would be disclosed to other claimants injured by Lyft drivers, increasing the number and severity of claims against Lyft. That reason, alone, according to the trial court and the Dallas Court of Appeals is insufficient justification for trying to keep the information confidential.

The attorneys in our Austin and Dallas office have considerable experience in determining whether insurance-related documents, whether policies or reservation of rights letters, are discoverable in litigation or arbitration. Please contact us with any questions you may have at info@gstexlaw.com.

Legal Disclaimers

This blog is made available by Gerstle Snelson, LLP for educational purposes and to provide general information about the law, only.  Neither this document nor the information contained in it is intended to constitute legal advice on any specific matter or of a general nature.  Use of the blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Gerstle Snelson, LLP where one does not already exist with the firm.  This blog should not be used a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney.

©Gerstle Snelson, LLP 2023.  All rights reserved.  Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited.  No part of this blog may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without the express written permission of Gerstle Snelson, LLP.