Stop us if you’ve heard this before, but the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals has once again mandamused a Hidalgo County trial court (this time a district court) for denying an insurer’s motion to compel appraisal in a windstorm case.
In re Germania Farm Mutual Insurance Association (No. 13-25-00093-CV; July 22, 2025) arose from the insurer’s denial of Plaintiffs’ claim for storm-related damages. Germania’s independent adjuster inspected the property and found no visible storm damage to the roof, only wear and tear to the home’s siding. Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging breach of contract and extracontractual claims. Germania answered and filed a verified motion to abate the action and compel appraisal. Plaintiffs filed a response contesting the enforceability of the policy and alleging that Germania was using abatement to shield itself from responding to their discovery requests. The trial court denied the motion to compel. Germania’s motion for reconsideration, which was rescheduled three separate times, was denied as well. Germania requested mandamus relief, contending that the trial court had abused its discretion by denying its motion to compel appraisal and its motion to reconsider the ruling. Plaintiffs asserted seven defenses to appraisal in a vehement defense.
In an opinion by Justice West, the court of appeals conditionally granted the writ. Justice West observed that a trial court has no discretion to ignore a valid appraisal clause and that appraisals “should generally go forward without preemptive intervention by the courts” (citing State Farm Lloyd’s v. Johnson, 290 S.W.3d 886 (Tex. 2009)). Plaintiffs first contended that Germania unreasonably delayed petitioning for mandamus relief until six months after the trial court denied appraisal, alleging that Germania’s obstinate conduct, including manifest discovery abuse, prejudiced Plaintiffs and caused them to incur substantial attorney fees. What really happened, however, was that the trial court repeatedly reset a hearing on Germania’s motion to reconsider its order denying appraisal, eventually holding the hearing more than three months after Germania asked for it. When the trial court finally denied reconsideration, Germania filed a petition for writ of mandamus four days later. Since SCOTUS has ruled that a period of delay should be calculated from the date the trial court denied a relator’s motion for rehearing, Plaintiffs could not argue that delay should be dated from the trial court’s initial denial of appraisal. While Germania failed to explain why it took six months from the trial court’s ruling for it to file a motion for reconsideration, there was no evidence that it acted in bad faith, nor did the delay bar mandamus relief.
Plaintiffs next asserted that Germania failed to present a sufficient mandamus record to support its claim for relief. However, the failure to provide transcripts of the trial court’s hearing on Germania’s motion to compel and subsequent motion for rehearing was not enough to preclude mandamus relief because the hearings were not evidentiary in nature, and Germania explained in its certification that no testimony pertaining to appraisal was adduced at the hearings. Third, Plaintiffs argued that Germania failed to timely request appraisal. In accordance with the contract, however, Germania was subject to either a two- or three-year limitation, not one year after the date of loss as Plaintiffs contended.
In their fourth issue, Plaintiffs argued that the trial court correctly denied appraisal because it only applies when the parties dispute the amount of loss, but no such dispute exists in this case because Germania simply denied the claim. This argument, however, ignored Johnson and other authority, which held that appraisal could proceed even when an insurer denies a claim and there are disputed issues involving coverage. Plaintiffs tried again, asserting that because Germania committed a prior material breach of the insurance policy by failing to investigate and pay their claim, Plaintiffs did not have to comply with the remaining terms of the policy, including appraisal. But, as the court observed, alleged breaches do not excuse compliance with the policy. The court likewise rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the appraisal clause was merely a covenant, not a condition precedent to suit as directly contradictory to SCOTX’s holding in Johnson. Finally, the court disposed of Plaintiffs’ argument that Germania waived its right to appraisal because of unreasonable delay.
The court held that the trial court had abused its discretion and that Germania had no adequate remedy by appeal. It directed the trial court to vacate its orders denying Germania’s motions to compel appraisal and for reconsideration and to grant Germania’s motion to compel.
Not that we’re counting, but this is the third time within a few weeks that the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals has had to instruct a Hidalgo County trial court about its responsibility to apply well-settled legal principles. We are hopeful that the new performance measures enacted by the Legislature, together with the additional disciplinary authority the Legislature has given to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, will identify judges who systematically flout the law and punish them for it. Enough is enough.
TCJL Intern Satchel Williams researched and prepared the first draft of this article.
