In Re Germania Farm Mutual Insurance Association v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00228-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE GERMANIA FARM
MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Germania Farm Mutual Insurance

Association asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motion to

compel a second appraisal in a lawsuit regarding storm-related property damages.

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,

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.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
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.

The trial court has no discretion to ignore a valid appraisal clause. State Farm

Lloyds v. Johnson, 290 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tex. 2009); In re SureChoice Underwriters

Reciprocal Exch., 702 S.W.3d 876, 881 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2024, orig.

proceeding). “[M]andamus 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, 345 S.W.3d 404, 412 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding);

see In re Germania Farm Mut. Ins. Ass’n, 722 S.W.3d 282, 287 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg 2025, orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the response filed by real party in interest Nereida Rodriguez, relator’s reply, and the

applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain relief.

Specifically, relator does not contend that the trial court abused its discretion by setting

aside the appraisal award, and we have found no authority in favor of the proposition that

mandamus should issue to compel a second appraisal under the facts and circumstances

2
present here. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.10. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
4th day of June, 2026.

3