Justice Aron Peña
The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals has taken an Hidalgo County district judge to task for sitting on competing motions for summary judgment for three years and granted a petition for writ of mandamus ordering the judge to make the ruling post-haste.
The underlying suit in In re America First Lloyd’s Insurance Company (No. 13-24-00059-CV; February 22, 2024) arose from a construction defect suit brought by La Joya ISD in 2018 against the contractor it retained to build an elementary school. The contractor filed a third-party petition against its subcontractors, including the HVAC subcontractor, Victoria. Victoria was insured under various policies by Hanover Lloyds Insurance Company, which denied coverage and a defense. Relator America First, who had agreed to defend Victoria under a reservation of rights, filed suit against Hanover seeking a declaration that Hanover had primary coverage for Victoria and a duty to defend and indemnify, and that Relator had excess coverage and no duty to defend. On January 6, 2021, Relator filed a traditional motion for summary judgment asserting that Hanover violated its duty to defend Victoria. Two weeks later, Hanover filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the general contractor’s third-party petition did not allege property damage sufficient to trigger coverage.
The trial court held a hearing on the motions on February 11, 2021, but did not issue ruling. Not receiving a ruling after some time, the parties sought a status conference to discuss, which was held on May 12, 2022. Again, the trial court took the motions under advisement and did nothing. After a three-year wait, Relator, with the support of the other parties, filed its mandamus petition on January 29, 2024. In an opinion by Justice Peña, the court of appeals found that: (1) the motions for summary judgment were properly filed and the trial court had a duty to rule on them; (2) Relator requested a ruling; and (3) the trial court failed to rule within a reasonable time [citations omitted]. The only issue was whether a three-year delay was “unreasonable,” which under the circumstances it clearly was.
We frequently hear from our members how difficult it can be to get reasonably prompt rulings, even routine ones, from certain trial courts around the state. While we understand that trial courts have a lot of things going on at the same time, there is simply no excuse for keeping litigants waiting for the wheels of justice to turn. This is the kind of thing that gives the whole system a bad name and undermines public confidence that citizens can get swift and impartial justice from the institutions they pay for. Perhaps it is time to add some disciplinary teeth beyond having to drag up to the courts of appeals just to get trial judges to do what they’re elected to do.
