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

NUMBER 13-23-00147-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 Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
Relator State Farm Lloyds filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the
trial court abused its discretion by compelling appraisal for an insurance claim after the
real party in interest, the Estate of Norma Hunt (estate), had instituted litigation. We deny
the petition for writ of mandamus.
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). A trial court abuses its discretion if its “decision is
‘so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law’” or if it
errs “in ‘determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts,’ even when the law
is unsettled.” In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 247 (Tex. 2021) (orig.
proceeding) (cleaned up) (quoting first Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839, then In re Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135). “Because a reviewing court cannot substitute its
discretion for that of the trial court, to find an abuse when factual matters are in dispute,
the reviewing court must conclude that the facts and circumstances of the case extinguish
any choice in the matter.” In re Mahindra, USA Inc., 549 S.W.3d 541, 550 (Tex. 2018)
(orig. proceeding). To determine whether an adequate appellate remedy exists, we weigh
the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments in a fact-specific examination
that does not depend on abstract or formulaic considerations. In re Acad., Ltd., 625
S.W.3d 19, 32 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d
at 136.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response filed by the estate, and the reply, is of the opinion that relator has failed to
meet its burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief. Based on the specific facts of this
case, we are persuaded neither that the trial court abused its discretion, nor that relator
lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Mahindra, USA Inc., 549 S.W.3d at 550;
2
In re Acad., Ltd., 625 S.W.3d at 32; see also Hall v. State Farm Lloyds, No. CV H-21-
1769, 2021 WL 5054647, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2021); Norberto L. v. State Farm Lloyds,
No. 5:19-CV-89, 2019 WL 12372059, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2019). Accordingly, we lift
the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated
or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally
decided.”). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
CLARISSA SILVA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
7th day of August, 2023.
3