Want Transport LLC v. Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company

Opinion filed May 8, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________

No. 11-25-00319-CV
___________

WANT TRANSPORT LLC, Appellant
V.
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court
Callahan County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2780

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Want Transport LLC, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s
default judgment in favor of Appellee, Progressive County Mutual Insurance
Company (Progressive), for claims arising from a motor vehicle collision. After this
appeal was docketed, Progressive and Want Transport, filed an “Agreed Motion to
Vacate and Remand,” stating that Want Transport did not receive notice of the
lawsuit before the trial court signed its default judgment. Upon review of the motion,
we sent a letter to the parties questioning whether the trial court, a constitutional
county court, had subject-matter jurisdiction over the proceedings below based on
the amount in controversy. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 15; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§ 21.009(1) (West 2023), § 26.042(a) (West Supp. 2025) (civil jurisdiction of
constitutional county courts); see In re Breviloba, 650 S.W.3d 508, 509 n.1 (Tex.
2022). We requested responses regarding this jurisdictional question and the
appropriate remedy for Want Transport’s appeal, given that the requested remand
would return the case to a trial court without jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the lawsuit. Both parties responded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction based on
the amount in controversy. We informed the parties by letter that the amount in
controversy exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the county court, and that, absent
grounds showing that the appeal could continue, the county court’s judgment
would be vacated, and the case would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3, 43.2(e).
“As courts of general jurisdiction, district courts are presumed to have subject-
matter jurisdiction over a dispute absent a showing to the contrary.” In re
CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec., LLC, 629 S.W.3d 149, 154 (Tex. 2021); see Tex.
Windstorm Ins. Ass’n v. Pruski, 689 S.W.3d 887, 891 (Tex. 2024) (“[a]bsent 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” (quoting S.C. v. M.B., 650 S.W.3d 428, 436
(Tex. 2022))). In this regard, district courts possess exclusive, appellate, and original
jurisdiction over all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where such
jurisdiction is conferred on another court or an administrative body. TEX. CONST.
art. V, § 8; GOV’T §§ 24.007, .008. In civil matters, district courts have original
jurisdiction in cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $500, exclusive of
interest. GOV’T § 24.007(b). The 42nd District Court has jurisdiction over matters
arising from Callahan, Coleman, and Taylor Counties. GOV’T § 24.144(a).
2
Callahan County has a constitutional county court and does not have a county
court at law. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 15; see also GOV’T §§ 21.009(2), 25.0001–
25.2704 (governing statutory county courts). Therefore, in civil cases, the
constitutional county court in Callahan County has concurrent jurisdiction with the
justice court in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200 but does not exceed
$20,000, and with the 42nd District Court in cases in which the amount in
controversy exceeds $500 but does not exceed $5,000. GOV’T § 26.042(a), (d).
In its original petition filed in the county court, Progressive sought $34,980.01
in monetary relief. As a result, the 42nd District Court had exclusive, original
jurisdiction over Progressive’s lawsuit, and the county court lacked jurisdiction over
the matter based on the amount in controversy. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Brite,
215 S.W.3d 400, 401 (Tex. 2007) (“The ‘matter in controversy’ includes all of the
damages the plaintiff seeks to recover at the time suit is filed.”). Because the county
court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction over Progressive’s lawsuit, we
vacate its judgment and dismiss the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(e); In re Est. of
Rushing, 644 S.W.3d 383, 390 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2022, pet. denied); Owens v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 996 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, pet. denied).
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case.
TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(e).

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

May 8, 2026
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3