In Re Trisura Insurance Company v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00102-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE TRISURA INSURANCE COMPANY

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Trisura Insurance Company (Trisura)

asserts that the trial court 2 abused its discretion by denying its motion to compel appraisal

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that
addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the
differences between opinions and memorandum opinions).
2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number C-2096-24-J in the 430th District

Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, and the respondent is the Honorable Orlando Esquivel. See id. R. 52.2.
of a property damage claim filed by the real party in interest, Maria De La Luz Selvera.

We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus.

I. BACKGROUND

Trisura filed an original petition and claim for declaratory judgment against

Selvera. 3 Trisura alleged that it insured Selvera’s property, which reportedly sustained

damage due to a weather event that occurred on April 29, 2023. Selvera submitted a

claim regarding the alleged damage, and after investigation, Trisura determined that there

was partial coverage for Selvera’s damages under her insurance policy. Selvera retained

counsel and sent presuit notice and a demand letter to Trisura’s third-party claims

administrator, Wellington Claim Service, LLC (Wellington). According to Trisura, Selvera

alleged that her insurance claim was undervalued and underpaid. Thereafter, Trisura, by

and through Wellington, invoked its right to appraisal under the insurance policy. In its

original petition, Trisura thus sought, in relevant part, a declaratory judgment that Selvera

was required to submit her claims to appraisal pursuant to her insurance policy. Trisura

thereafter filed a separate motion to compel appraisal. The insurance policy at issue

provides in relevant part that:

8. Appraisal.

3 In a separate lawsuit, Selvera filed suit against the adjusters who handled her property damage

claim, Eagle 1 Adjusting LLC (Eagle 1) and Thomas Walter Theophilus Maretzki, in trial court cause number
CL-24-1211-G in the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas, alleging that because of their
conduct, her claim was “improperly adjusted, inadequately paid, and wrongfully denied.” In that case,
Trisura invoked appraisal, filed a plea in intervention and elected to accept whatever liability its agents
might have to Selvera under § 542A.006 of the Texas Insurance Code. See TEX. INS. CODE ANN.
§ 542A.006. Trisura, Eagle 1, and Maretzki filed motions to dismiss Selvera’s lawsuit against Eagle 1 and
Maretzki. The trial court struck Trisura’s plea in intervention and denied the motions to dismiss. Trisura,
Eagle 1, and Maretzki have assailed those rulings by petition for writ of mandamus filed in our appellate
cause number 13-25-00139-CV, and by separate opinion issued this same date, we have conditionally
granted mandamus relief in that case. See In re Trisura Ins., No. 13-25-00139-CV, 2025 WL ___, at __
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 25, 2025, orig. proceeding).

2
If you and we fail to agree on the actual cash value, amount of loss,
or cost of repair or replacement, either can make a written demand
for appraisal. Each will then select a competent, independent
appraiser and notify the other of the appraiser’s identity within 20
days of receipt of the written demand. The two appraisers will choose
an umpire. If they cannot agree upon an umpire within 15 days, you
or we may request that the choice be made by a judge of a district
court of a judicial district where the loss occurred. The two appraisers
will then set the amount of loss, stating separately the actual cash
value and loss to each item.

If the appraisers fail to agree, they will submit their differences to the
umpire. An itemized decision agreed to by any two of these three and
filed with us will set the amount of the loss. Such award shall be
binding on you and us.

Each party will pay its own appraiser and bear the other expenses of
the appraisal and umpire equally.

....

12. Suit Against Us. No suit or action can be brought unless the policy
provisions have been complied with. Action brought against us must
be started within two years and one day after the cause of action
accrues.

The “Special Provisions Endorsement” of Selvera’s insurance policy modifies these

provisions, in part, but does not affect our analysis of the issue presented in this original

proceeding.

Selvera filed an answer to Trisura’s lawsuit including affirmative defenses and a

plea in abatement. She thereafter filed an amended answer including a counterclaim for

declaratory relief, and she also filed a response in opposition to Trisura’s motion to compel

appraisal. On January 31, 2025, the trial court denied Trisura’s motion to compel

appraisal.

This original proceeding ensued. By one issue, Trisura asserts that the trial court

abused its discretion by denying its motion to compel appraisal. The Court requested and

3
received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from Selvera. Trisura filed a

reply thereto, and Selvera filed a sur-reply. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.4, 52.5, 52.8.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that: (1) the trial

court abused its discretion; and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two

requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

Mandamus relief is appropriate to enforce an appraisal clause because denying

the appraisal would vitiate the insurer’s right to defend its breach of contract claim. In re

Universal Underwriters of Tex. Ins., 345 S.W.3d 404, 412 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding);

In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding); In re

SureChoice Underwriters Reciprocal Exch., 702 S.W.3d 876, 882 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2024, orig. proceeding); In re Acceptance Indem. Ins., 562 S.W.3d 645, 649

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, orig. proceeding); In re Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins., 542

S.W.3d 815, 822 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2018, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re State

Farm Lloyds, 514 S.W.3d 789, 792 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig.

proceeding).

4
III. ANALYSIS

As stated previously, Trisura contends that the trial court abused its discretion by

denying its motion to compel appraisal. Selvera contends otherwise, and asserts, inter

alia, that appraisal is not required because there is no dispute as to the amount of loss at

issue in this case.

A. Applicable Law

Insurance appraisal clauses “provide a means to resolve disputes about the

amount of loss for a covered claim.” In re Universal Underwriters of Tex. Ins., 345 S.W.3d

at 406–07; see State Farm Lloyds v. Johnson, 290 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tex. 2009).

“Appraisals can provide a less expensive, more efficient alternative to litigation.” In re

Universal Underwriters of Tex. Ins., 345 S.W.3d at 407. Such clauses are “generally

enforceable, absent illegality or waiver.” Id. A trial court has no discretion to ignore a valid

appraisal clause. Johnson, 290 S.W.3d at 888; In re SureChoice Underwriters Reciprocal

Exch., 702 S.W.3d at 881. Appraisals “should generally go forward without preemptive

intervention by the courts.” Johnson, 290 S.W.3d at 895.

B. Dispute Over the Amount of Loss

Selvera argues that the trial court correctly denied appraisal because it applies

only when there is a dispute over the amount of loss—and in this case there is no dispute

over the amount of the claimed loss because she is not pursuing a claim for policy

benefits. We disagree with this contention.

Trisura elected to invoke the appraisal provision in its insurance policy and sought

declaratory relief regarding its right to appraisal of Selvera’s claims. The appraisal clause

at issue applies when the parties disagree as to “the actual cash value, amount of loss,

5
or cost of repair or replacement.” The record indicates that Selvera’s counsel advised

Wellington that Trisura’s agents “denied and/or underpaid major portions of the claim and

failed to properly adjust the claim,” and that Trisura did not “pay the full amount of loss

due under the terms and conditions of the homeowner’s policy of insurance.”

Appraisal may be invoked and enforced even when an insurer denies a claim and

there are disputed issues involving coverage. See id. at 893 (“Even if the appraisal here

turns out to involve not just damage but liability questions, that does not mean appraisal

should be prohibited as an initial matter.”); In re SureChoice Underwriters Reciprocal

Exch., 702 S.W.3d at 884 (concluding that appraisal was not precluded where the

insurance policy provided for appraisal when the parties “fail to agree on the amount of

loss” and the case presented issues involving coverage); In re Liberty Ins. Corp., 496

S.W.3d 229, 234–35 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding [mand.

denied]) (concluding that the insurer’s denial of the insurance claim did not amount to a

waiver of its right to appraisal). Accordingly, we reject Selvera’s assertion that appraisal

was not required in the case at hand.

C. Summary

We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Trisura’s motion

to compel appraisal, and Trisura lacks an adequate remedy by appeal to address this

error. See In re Universal Underwriters of Tex. Ins., 345 S.W.3d at 412; In re SureChoice

Underwriters Reciprocal Exch., 702 S.W.3d at 882; In re Acceptance Indem. Ins., 562

S.W.3d at 649; In re Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins., 542 S.W.3d at 822. We sustain the sole

issue presented by Trisura in this original proceeding.

6
IV. CONCLUSION

The Court, having examined and fully considered Trisura’s petition for writ of

mandamus, Selvera’s response, the additional briefing, and the applicable law, is of the

opinion that Trisura has met its burden to obtain relief. We conditionally grant the petition

for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to: (1) vacate its January 31, 2025 order

denying Trisura’s motion to compel appraisal; and (2) grant Trisura’s motion to compel

appraisal. Our writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply.

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
25th day of July, 2025.

7