The Texarkana Court of Appeals has vacated a Bowie County district court’s order granting a temporary injunction to compel an insurer to continue paying an insured’s living expenses.
USAA General Indemnity Company v. Kenneth O’Bryant (No. 06-23-00084-CV; January 18, 2024) arose from a lawsuit filed by an insured against USAA for breach of its insurance contract. The insured made a claim for damage to his home caused by a December 2022 ice storm that ruptured water pipes, flooding his home and rendering it uninhabitable. USAA paid the insured more than $100,000, as well as additional living expenses between December and July 2023. When USAA terminated payment of his living expenses, the insured sued, asserting breach of contract for failing to pay the full costs of repair and cutting off expenses prior to the repair of the property. The insured further sought a temporary injunction compelling USAA to pay those expenses, which the trial court granted. USAA moved to dissolve the TI because it was issued without a hearing and void for failing to set a trial date or fix the amount of security to be paid by the insured. USAA paid the amount of the order, however, and the trial court refused to dissolve it. USAA appealed.
The court of appeals vacated the TI and remanded to the trial court. USAA asserted that the TI order did not comply with Rules 683 and 684 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The court agreed, determining that: (1) the order was issued without making essential findings that the insured had a cause of action against USAA, a probable right to the relief sought, and a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury; (2) the order did not set a trial date as required by Rule 683; and (3) the order was issued without a bond given by the insured (and was thus void on its face), as mandated by Rule 684. The insured argued that the court of appeals did not have jurisdiction because the order expired before the appeal and was moot. The court rejected this argument, finding that a live controversy still existed because the insured did not repay the money despite admitting that the TI order was void at its inception. The court consequently had jurisdiction over the appeal and vacated the order.
We flagged this case because it involves a clear disregard for the rules on the part of the trial court. As such, it should never have gotten to the court of appeals, which we applaud for acting so quickly and decisively to enforce the law.
