In Re U.S. Risk, Inc. v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

NUMBER 13-24-00227-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE U.S. RISK, INC.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1
On May 6, 2024, relator U.S. Risk, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus
asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to recognize a mandatory
abatement under the Texas Insurance Code. See TEX. INS. CODE ANN. §§ 541.154,
541.155. Relator has also filed an emergency motion seeking to stay the trial court
proceedings, including the trial of this case set by agreement to ensue on May 13, 2024,
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).
pending the resolution of its 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 by 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). Because mandamus is an extraordinary remedy,
“the right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for action by the
respondent, and the respondent’s erroneous refusal to act.” In re Eagleridge Operating,
LLC, 642 S.W.3d 518, 525 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Coppola, 535
S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain relief.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion to
stay.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
7th day of May, 2024.
2