In the latest gem from Hidalgo County trial courts, the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals has mandamused a count court-at-law for bypassing the appraisal clause in a homeowner’s policy and appointing an appraisal umpire from the Plaintiff’s hand-picked list.
In re Germania Farm Mutual Insurance Association (No. 13-25-00640-CV; February 5, 2026) arose from a homeowner’s claim under her Germania policy for storm damage. She later filed suit in an Hidalgo county court, alleging breach of contract and extracontractual claims. Pursuant to the policy, Germania invoked the appraisal provision. When the parties’ appraisers couldn’t agree on a number, Germania requested the AAA to appoint an umpire. It appointed Bowen. Plaintiff then filed a petition for appointment of an umpire, alleging bias. She submitted her own list of “neutral” appraisal umpires. Germania responded that the umpire had already been appointed and that there was no evidence he couldn’t properly serve. If the trial court decided that he should be removed, however, Germania requested that the trial court direct the parties to seek a replacement umpire from the AAA as required by the policy. The trial court signed an order striking Bowen and appointing another umpire off of Plaintiff’s list. Germania filed a petition for writ of mandamus.
In an opinion by Justice Fonseca, the court of appeals granted the writ. The insurance policy in question specified that in the event the parties’ appraisers could not agree on the amount of property damage, either party must first request AAA to select an umpire to make a decision. Only if AAA advised the parties that it couldn’t appoint an umpire could the parties jointly request a district court to do so (not a county court at law, as in the present case). The umpire was also obligated to inform the parties of any known facts which a reasonable person may consider as affecting the independence, neutrality, or impartiality of the umpire. Once the umpire had conferred with the parties and prepared a written appraisal, either party could sign off on it and that would be that.
The court agreed with Germania that Plaintiff presented no evidence that the umpire was found to be biased or partial. [Plaintiff had alleged that Bowen’s disqualification in another Hidalgo County trial court involving Germania’s appraiser evidenced partiality toward Germania.] Observing that Plaintiff did not file a verified petition or sworn affidavit including such evidence meant that the trial court’s “evidentiary hearing” was not evidentiary at all. In striking the umpire, consequently, the trial court abused its discretion. But even if Plaintiff had properly presented evidence of Bowen’s prior disqualification in another case, the court would have reached the same decision. Disqualification in one case does not prove bias in another, and there was no evidence that Bowen had any duty to disclose anything concerning his neutrality in this case. Again, the trial court abused its discretion.
Germania further argued that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a replacement umpire rather than following the appraisal clause requiring the AAA to appoint the replacement. Plaintiff argued that the trial court didn’t have any choice because AAA could not remove Bowen. But the court saw right through that. While the appraisal clause in the policy didn’t permit AAA to remove an umpire, it authorized AAA to appoint a replacement umpire. Only in the event the AAA stated that it couldn’t appoint an umpire were the parties authorized to approach the court. The trial court abused its discretion by ignoring the appraisal clause in the policy and appointing Plaintiff’s umpire.
Finally, the court determined that Germania had no remedy by appeal, so mandamus was proper. Here the court found that absent mandamus review, “the trial court’s errors will cause the parties and public to incur ‘time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal of improperly conducted proceedings” (citations omitted). The trial court’s rulings impaired Germania’s substantive rights under the policy and affected its ability to defend against the lawsuit. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order striking Bowen and appointing Plaintiff’s umpire and to proceed under the policy language.
