In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-12-00581-CV
_________________
IN RE GUIDEONE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
________________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company seeks mandamus relief from an order that
denies a motion to compel appraisal. The commercial insurance policy covering the
premises of First Baptist Church of Silsbee at the time of Hurricane Rita included
appraisal clauses and a non-waiver provision. GuideOne invoked the appraisal clause
several years after the litigation commenced and two months before a trial setting. The
trial court found GuideOne waived its appraisal rights by failing to demand appraisal
within a reasonable time after impasse and that its failure prejudiced the insured.
“While trial courts have some discretion as to the timing of an appraisal, they
have no discretion to ignore a valid appraisal clause entirely.” State Farm Lloyds v.
Johnson, 290 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tex. 2009). A party seeking to establish waiver must
1
show that the party compelling appraisal failed to invoke the appraisal provision within a
reasonable time after an impasse was reached, and that the delay caused prejudice. See In
re Universal Underwriters of Tex. Ins. Co., 345 S.W.3d 404, 408, 410-11 (Tex. 2011)
(orig. proceeding). “[W]hile the time period may be instructive in interpreting the parties’
intentions, it alone is not the standard by which courts determine the reasonableness of a
delay.” Id. at 408. Delay is measured from the point of impasse, which requires an
examination of the circumstances and the parties’ conduct. Id. “An impasse is not the
same as a disagreement about the amount of loss. Ongoing negotiations, even when the
parties disagree, do not trigger a party’s obligation to demand appraisal.” Id. Impasse
occurs when the parties reach a mutual understanding that neither will negotiate further.
Id. at 410. “We will not infer waiver where neither explicit language nor conduct
indicates that such was the party’s intent.” Id. If a party is genuinely engaging in
settlement negotiations, it cannot have intended to relinquish its right to appraisal unless
it expressly waives that right. See In re Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, No. 10-11-
00263-CV, 2011 WL 4837869, at *6 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 12, 2011, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.).
The trial court found impasse occurred no later than December 13, 2007, when
GuideOne filed its answer to First Baptist’s suit. However, the existence of a dispute and
the development of an impasse are two different things. See Universal Underwriters, 345
S.W.3d at 408. GuideOne and First Baptist engaged in mediation in October 2011, which
2
indicated that they were still negotiating years after the suit commenced. The mandamus
record contains no explicit rejection of appraisal by GuideOne. Significantly, the intent
of the parties expressed in the contract allowed the appraisal process to occur without
affecting the parties’ rights to litigate. The insurance policy placed no time limit on
making a written demand for an appraisal, and stated that in the event of an appraisal the
insured retained its right to sue and the insurer retained its right to deny the claim. The
policy also expressed the parties’ intention that waiver not be implied, as the insurance
policy expressly provides that the policy’s terms “can be amended or waived only by
endorsement issued by us and made a part of this policy.” We conclude that GuideOne
did not waive its right to an appraisal merely by waiting until May 2012 to invoke that
provision in the policy. The issue, therefore, is whether by waiting until the litigation
matured to invoke the appraisal clause GuideOne prejudiced First Baptist’s enforcement
of its rights under the policy.
GuideOne invoked the appraisal process in May 2012. At that time, the parties
had a July 2012 trial setting. At the hearing conducted in June 2012, counsel represented
that the appraisal could be completed within sixty days. In September 2012, the trial court
granted GuideOne’s motion to compel appraisal and abated the case. However, in
October 2012, the trial court granted First Baptist’s motion to reconsider and denied
GuideOne’s motion to compel appraisal. A trial court generally has broad discretion in
managing its docket. See In re Allied Chem. Corp., 227 S.W.3d 652, 654 (Tex. 2007)
3
(orig. proceeding). However, the mandamus record contains no docket control order or
other indication of a new trial setting at the time the trial court ruled. Because the trial
setting had already passed and thus, there was no active trial setting to disturb, we may
not infer that the trial court denied the motion to compel to preserve any pending trial
setting or other docket control setting.
First Baptist relies on arbitration cases to establish prejudice, but a crucial
distinction between arbitration and appraisal relates directly to First Baptist’s prejudice
argument: arbitration provides an alternative forum for dispute resolution while appraisal
concerns the method of determining damages. See In re Fleetwood Homes of Tex., L.P.,
257 S.W.3d 692, 694 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); see also Perry Homes v. Cull, 258
S.W.3d 580, 597 (Tex. 2008). By substantially invoking the litigation process, a party can
be deemed to have chosen to forego its rights to have the dispute resolved in an alternate
forum; but, under the policy being enforced in this case, First Baptist’s right to sue is
unaffected by GuideOne’s demand for an appraisal. See Fleetwood Homes, 257 S.W.3d
at 694. The parties contractually agreed that either party could demand to have the
amount of the loss be determined by appraisers rather than by a jury.
First Baptist contends it has been prejudiced because it incurred litigation
expenses due to GuideOne’s delay before invoking the appraisal process. Over a period
of several years, the parties engaged in the discovery process, answering written
discovery, taking depositions, and disclosing experts. The expenses First Baptist incurred
4
developing its case included approximately $10,000 in expert fees for accounting services
and over $100,000 in attorney fees. Nevertheless, the mandamus record does not
establish that these expenses would not have been incurred if GuideOne had moved for
appraisal earlier. Regardless of any appraisal, First Baptist needed an accountant and an
attorney to pursue its claims and to establish the amount of its damages. Because First
Baptist did not identify specific expenses that would not have been incurred had the
appraisal process occurred earlier, its evidence on the total fees and expenses it incurred
does not support the trial court’s finding of prejudice.
Appraisal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction, but it does provide an
alternate method of determining the amount of the property loss under the policy. First
Baptist contends that by demanding an appraisal, GuideOne is attempting to start the
entire claims handling process over, even for those claims that have been paid but
allegedly involve violations of the prompt pay statute. See Tex. Ins. Code Ann. §
542.058 (West Supp. 2012). In its submissions to the trial court, GuideOne suggested to
the trial court that the appraisal would effectively determine First Baptist’s claims for
delayed payment. We agree the appraisal is germane to GuideOne’s defense. Because the
appraisal is related to GuideOne’s defense, the trial court abused its discretion in denying
its motion to compel. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex.
2002) (orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief where denial of an appraisal would
vitiate the insurer’s breach of contract defense). The effect of the appraisal process on
5
First Baptist’s claims is a matter yet to be determined by the trial court. See generally
Security Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Waloon Inv., Inc., No. 14-11-00130-CV, 2012 WL 4788114, at
* 3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 9, 2012, no pet.) (holding an appraisal award
does not, by itself, entitle either the insured or the insurer to judgment in its favor as to
the insured’s claim against the insurer for breach of contract). A flawed appraisal award
may be disregarded, but denying an appraisal altogether deprives GuideOne of a
contractual right that cannot be remedied by appeal. See Johnson, 290 S.W.3d at 895;
Allstate, 85 S.W.3d at 196. The amount of the loss is determined through the process in
the appraisal clause, but liability for the loss is determined by the courts. Johnson, 290
S.W.3d at 889.
Absent an adequate showing of prejudice, the trial court abused its discretion by
denying GuideOne’s motion to compel an appraisal. See Universal Underwriters, 345
S.W.3d at 411-12. The timing of the appraisal and the effect of the appraisal on the
parties’ claims and defenses are not appropriate matters for mandamus review, and we
express no opinion concerning GuideOne’s motion for abatement. See Allstate, 85
S.W.3d at 196.
We conditionally grant the petition for a writ of mandamus. We are confident that
the trial court will vacate its order denying GuideOne’s motion to compel, and that it will
enforce the appraisal provision of the policy. The writ of mandamus will issue only if the
trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion.
6
PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on December 17, 2012
Opinion Delivered January 24, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
7