in Re Security National Insurance ( 2011 )

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed February 3, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-11-00013-CV

In Re Security National Insurance, Relator

  ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

  WRIT OF MANDAMUS

55^th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-14857

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 10, 2011, relator Security National Insurance filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Jeff Shadwick, presiding judge of the 55th District Court of Harris County to vacate the order signed December 17, 2010.

Security National issued a commercial insurance policy to real party in interest Waloon Investment d/b/a Ramada Limited.  The policy was in effect September 13, 2008, and covered a Ramada Inn, which sustained damage when Hurricane Ike struck the Houston area.  On June 7, 2010, the trial court ordered the parties to appraisal pursuant to this court’s opinion in In re Security Nat’l Ins. Co., 14-10-00009-CV; 2010 WL 1609247 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] April 22, 2010, orig. proceeding).  On November 10, 2010, Waloon filed a motion to enforce the appraisal award.  On November 24, 2010, Judge Ramos granted the motion to enforce, and, on December 17, 2010, signed an order requiring Security to pay $3,031,027.13.  On January 6, 2011, pursuant to rule 7.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Security National asked Judge Shadwick to reconsider Judge Ramos’s order. Judge Shadwick denied Security’s motion for reconsideration, but extended the deadline for Security’s payment to January 13, 2011. 

On January 10, 2011, Security National filed petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  On January 11, 2011, this court issued an order staying the trial court’s December 17, 2010 order, and requesting a response from the real party in interest.  On January 11, 2011, the respondent signed a final judgment severing the contractual issue between the parties, and ordering Security National to pay $3,031,027.13 to the real party. 

Mandamus relief is available when the trial court abuses its discretion and there is no adequate remedy at law, such as by appeal.  In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004); In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d 298, 301 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding)). Because the trial court entered a final judgment on its December 17, 2010 order, relator has an adequate remedy at law.  A writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal.  See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840–41; In re Bernson, 254 S.W.3d 594, 595 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding).

Because the order Security National complains of is subject to review by direct appeal, we have no authority to issue writ of mandamus.  Accordingly, we deny Security National’s petition for writ of mandamus.  Real party’s request for supersedeas bond is denied as moot.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Seymore, and McCally.