In Re Great American Insurance Company of New York Appeal from 284th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-20-00215-CV __________________ IN RE GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20-02-02039 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, Great American Insurance Company of New York (“Great American”) contends the trial court abused its discretion by overruling Great American’s assertion of attorney-client privilege regarding the production of a document that Great American submitted to the trial court for in camera inspection. In its response to the mandamus petition, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”), the real party in interest, informs this Court that the trial court signed a final judgment on October 2, 2020, disposing of 1 all claims and counterclaims in the case, and suggesting the mandamus is moot. Great American did not respond to Nationwide’s suggestion of mootness. Generally, the signing of a final judgment moots a mandamus proceeding that concerns production of evidence in the underlying case. See In re Jennings, No. 1017-00247-CV, 2017 WL 4542994, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 11, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (final judgment mooted trial court’s denial of motion for genetic testing). Although provided an adequate opportunity to respond, Great American does not contest Nationwide’s suggestion of mootness. We therefore dismiss the mandamus proceeding as moot without reference to the merits. PETITION DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on October 5, 2020 Opinion Delivered December 17, 2020 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.