In Re State Farm Lloyds v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

NUMBER 13-23-00063-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Peña
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1
Relator State Farm Lloyds (State Farm) filed a petition for writ of mandamus
asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing an attorney as the umpire
in the appraisal process between State Farm and the real party in interest, Mario
Quintanilla, because the insurance policy at issue requires the umpire to be an engineer,
architect, adjuster, public adjuster, or contractor. See, e.g., In re State Farm Lloyds, No.
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
13-22-00545-CV, 2023 WL 2029148, at *1–7 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb.
15, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“The trial court abused its discretion by appointing
an umpire in contradiction to the requirements delineated in the insurance policy, and
relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal to address this error.”). We dismiss this
original proceeding as moot.
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.
Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,
840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148
S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial
court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re
USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two
requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and subsequent events, is of the opinion that this matter has been rendered moot. After
this Court requested Quintanilla to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus,
Quintanilla informed us that he had agreed to file a motion in the underlying proceedings
requesting the trial court to appoint a new umpire pursuant to the qualifications contained
in the insurance policy which “would effectively render [this original proceeding] moot and
avoid a waste of time and resources.” State Farm subsequently notified this Court that
2
the trial court has set aside the order at issue herein, and so “mandamus no longer
appears necessary at this time.”
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the foregoing sequence of events, is of the opinion that this original proceeding
should be dismissed as moot. See In re Contract Freighters, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 810, 813
(Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d
137, 162 (Tex. 2012); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005)
(orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 52.10 (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is
effective until the case is finally decided.”). We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus
as moot.
JAIME TIJERINA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
24th day of March, 2023.
3