in Re: Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 12-18-00100-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 31, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company and related entities (collectively "Metropolitan") sought mandamus relief from the trial court's denial of its motions to transfer venue to Dallas County and to sever its claims from those against Fidel Campos in a personal injury case involving Patti Wan. The background involves an automobile collision in 2013 between Wan and Campos’s uninsured minor son, after which Metropolitan paid Wan's claims with a $250 deductible. Wan later sued Campos and amended her petition to include claims against Metropolitan for breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and a declaratory judgment, alleging untimely reimbursement of her deductible and seeking class certification.

The court ruled against Metropolitan, affirming that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear abuse of discretion and an absence of adequate appellate remedy. The burden of proof lies with the relator (Metropolitan) to demonstrate entitlement to relief. The court acknowledged that while mandamus may involve less expense or delay than an appeal, it does not imply that appeal is inadequate unless it results in a significant waste of judicial resources. The determination of an adequate remedy is context-specific, considering the broader implications on the legal system, not just the parties involved. The writ for mandamus relief was ultimately denied.

Metropolitan asserts that the trial court improperly denied its motion to sever Wan's claims against it from her claims against Campos. However, Wan subsequently filed a motion to lift the stay and withdrew her opposition to the severance, indicating no further contest. This development rendered the issue moot, as a case becomes moot when no controversy exists between the parties, thus making any opinion on the matter an impermissible advisory opinion.

In a separate issue, Metropolitan challenges the trial court's denial of its motion to transfer venue to Dallas County, claiming that venue in Rusk County is improper following the severance of claims. It argues that, based on the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, proper venue should lie in Dallas County where its principal place of business is located. The code designates Section 15.032, under which venue for insurance companies is permissive, allowing suits in the county of the principal office, where the loss occurred, or where the policyholder resided. Since Metropolitan relies on a permissive venue statute, mandamus review is typically inappropriate unless "extraordinary circumstances" are present, which Metropolitan has not demonstrated in this case.

Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company sought a writ of mandamus, assuming extraordinary circumstances existed. However, to succeed, Metropolitan needed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, which the record did not support. Wan provided adequate venue facts establishing that her lawsuit against Metropolitan was properly situated in Rusk County, as the accident occurred there and she resided in Rusk County at the time. Under Texas Insurance Code § 1952.110, actions regarding uninsured motorist coverage must occur in the county of the accident or the policyholder's residence, making venue mandatory in Rusk County. Despite Metropolitan's claim that this provision did not apply, the court maintained that venue was proper in Rusk County. Consequently, Metropolitan failed to meet the necessary prerequisites for mandamus relief regarding the venue determination, leading to the denial of their petition. The court also lifted a previous stay of proceedings. Metropolitan was ordered to pay all costs associated with the proceeding.