The Texas Supreme Court has received merits briefing in a case that could have a significant impact on the way TWIA litigation is handled in Texas courts.
Texas Windstorm Insurance Association v. Stephen Pruski (No. 23-0447) arose from a Corpus Christi Court of Appeals decision that voided a trial court judgment in favor of TWIA because the trial judge was not appointed by the MDL panel, as required by § 2210.575(e), Insurance Code [Pruski v. Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass’n, 667 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2023, pet. filed). The statute provides that “[A]n action brought under [Subsection (e)] shall be presided over by a judge appointed by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation designated under Section 74.161, Government Code.” The court of appeals held that this language was mandatory, exclusive, and unwaivable.
TWIA’s brief argues that the court of appeals’ decision violates longstanding Texas law that “[w]hen the presiding judge is not appointed in accordance with the required process or procedure, the judgment might be subject to reversal on appeal (i.e., voidable), but it is not void as a matter of law. The fatal error in the decision, according to TWIA, is that the court of appeals confused the Legislature’s intention “to limit litigation against TWIA and encourage more uniform claims handling” from its intent “to limit the district court’s jurisdiction.” The court of appeals further misapplied SCOTX’s ruling in S.C. v. M.B., 650 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. 2022), in which the court stated that “[w]e resist classifying a provision as jurisdictional absent clear legislative intent to that effect. Crosstex Energy Servs., L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384, 391 (Tex. 2014). Absent a compelling showing to the contrary, we presume that remedies remain intact and that the jurisdiction of a district court—our state’s sole court of general jurisdiction—remains undisturbed (citations omitted).” Here, as TWIA points out, § 2210.575(e) doesn’t say anything about jurisdiction, much less expressing “clear legislative intent to that effect.” Additionally, there is no question that the trial judge in this case was qualified, and “[a]ny error in the manner or procedure by which [the judge] was assigned in this case is not a fundamental or jurisdictional error and, at most, constitutes a procedural error that can be waived for purposes of appeal” (citation omitted).
We should note that in the TWIA case we reported yesterday, plaintiffs argued that, based on the Pruski decision, the Beaumont Court of Appeals should reverse and remand for assignment to a judge appointed by the MDL panel. The court turned down this invitation, noting that “[o]pinions from our sister courts ‘are not binding on this Court (citations omitted) Therefore, we decline to follow Pruski to the extent that Pruski could be interpreted to require appointment of a judge by an MDL panel under the circumstances that resulted in this appeal.”
TWIA’s brief points out that “[d]ozens of pending TWIA cases are now effectively on hold pending the outcome of this appeal because the court of appeals’ holding raises serious doubts about the presiding judges’ authority.” It notes further that the holding will impact “[m]ultiple pending appeals involving claims against TWIA,” two of which have been abated by the Corpurs Christi court. Even more disastrously, “under the court of appeals’ ruling, every order and judgment in nearly every action against TWIA is void because the judges were not appointed by the MDL Panel, and courts of appeals have no jurisdiction to review the merits of void orders and judgments.”
Clearly, the court of appeals’ decision has potentially catastrophic effects on pretty much every claim filed against TWIA in the last 12 years. It is illuminating that the MDL Panel itself has never appointed a judge in a TWIA case because no one has ever asked for it. It is also interesting to note that the plaintiff in Pruski is representing himself. In other words, nobody else has taken up the cause, and we seriously doubt that it does anybody any good, claimants, TWIA, or their lawyers, to void literally hundreds of judgments and start over again. We hope SCOTX steps in to stop this particular madness.
