legal strategies.” (citation omitted)); United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir.1989) ("[The joint defense privilege] serves to protect the confidentiality of communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel.”) (emphasis added). 13 . See, e.g., In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 719 (Tex.1998) (declining to extend the attorney-client privilege to communications between an insured and liability insurer where "at the time [the insured] made her statements, there was no attorney-client relationship” between her and her insurer); see also In re Tex. Farmers Ins. Exch., 990 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). 14 . Our evidentiary rules have the force and
holding that if the insured is only partially compensated by the insurer both the insurer and the insured are real partiesininterest holding that if counsel retained by an insurer acts as an investigator and not as an attorney then the communications between the insured and insurer are not privileged holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith