Yolanda Gonzalez v. American National Lloyds Insurance Company ( 2023 )

NUMBER 13-23-00148-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
YOLANDA GONZALEZ, Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN NATIONAL LLOYDS
INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 9
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña
Appellant Yolanda Gonzalez filed a notice of appeal from an order denying her
motion to set aside an appraisal award in trial court cause number CL-22-0502-I in the
County Court at Law No. 9 of Hidalgo County, Texas. In the underlying case, Gonzalez
filed suit against appellee American National Lloyds Insurance Company alleging that it
failed to pay covered losses for storm damage that her property sustained as the result
of Hurricane Hannah in 2020. The parties subsequently engaged in the appraisal process
as provided in Gonzalez’s insurance policy. After an appraisal award was signed,
Gonzalez filed a motion to set aside the appraisal award. The trial court denied her
motion, and this appeal ensued. Based on our review of the record, it appears that
Gonzalez has filed a motion for leave to file a permissive appeal with the trial court, but
the record fails to reflect that the trial court has issued a ruling on that motion.
On June 16, 2023, and again on July 6, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified
Gonzalez that it did not appear that the order at issue was appealable, requested
correction of this defect, and advised Gonzalez that the appeal would be dismissed if the
defect was not corrected. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). Gonzalez did not correct the
defect or otherwise respond to the Clerk’s directives.
As an appellate court, we have the obligation to examine our jurisdiction and may
do so sua sponte. See Pike v. Tex. EMC Mgmt., LLC, 610 S.W.3d 763, 774 (Tex. 2020);
M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam). Generally,
appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d
191, 195 (Tex. 2001). “Exceptions to this general rule are provided by statutes that
specifically authorize interlocutory appeals of particular orders.” City of Watauga v.
Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
§ 51.014 (listing several interlocutory orders that may be appealed).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the
applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we
2
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
L. ARON PEÑA JR.
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
17th day of August, 2023.
3