In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-15-00265-CV
_________________
IN RE TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
_________________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
1A District Court of Jasper County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 34,224
_________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, we conditionally grant mandamus relief. Texas
Mutual Insurance Company (“Texas Mutual”) denied Larry Smith’s claim for
workers’ compensation benefits for an on-the-job injury allegedly sustained on
June 23, 2014, because the workers’ compensation policy allegedly expired
approximately three weeks earlier. Smith’s employer, Jimmy E. Ellis, d/b/a Jimmy
Ellis Construction (“Ellis”) sued Texas Mutual and asked the trial court to order
Texas Mutual to provide workers’ compensation benefits to Smith and reimburse
Ellis for medical expenses that Ellis claims to have incurred in connection with
1
Smith’s injury. Texas Mutual filed a challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction,
arguing in part that Ellis had not presented a claim to the Texas Department of
Insurance Division of Workers’ Compensation (the “Division”). Ellis responded
and argued that the trial court had jurisdiction over the claim because the claim
was based on a theory of equitable estoppel. The trial court denied Texas Mutual’s
motion to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Ellis argues that the trial court has jurisdiction to determine whether Texas
Mutual waived its right of cancellation pursuant to this Court’s decision in
Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas v. Mason. See generally
460 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1970, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The
current Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) “with its definitions, detailed
procedures, and dispute resolution process demonstrating legislative intent for
there to be no alternative remedies” was not in effect when Mason was decided.
See Texas Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430, 444 (Tex. 2012). The Act
now provides an administrative dispute resolution process for claims for workers’
compensation benefits, including a claim for reimbursement by a subclaimant such
as Ellis. Id.; see also Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 409.009 (West 2015).
The Division has exclusive jurisdiction “for claims arising out of a carrier’s
investigation, handling, or settling of a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.”
2
In re Crawford & Co., 458 S.W.3d 920, 925-26 (Tex. 2015). Ellis’s claims fall
within the Division’s exclusive jurisdiction and “the Act provides the sole process
and remedies for those claims.” Id. at 928. According to the record before us, Ellis
has not pursued the administrative process that is a prerequisite for judicial review.
Id.; see also Tex. Labor Code §§ 410.252, 410.302 (West 2015). The trial court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction; therefore, it was an abuse of discretion for the
trial court to deny the motion to dismiss. Texas Mutual is entitled to mandamus
relief. Crawford & Co., 458 S.W.3d at 928.
We conditionally grant mandamus relief and direct the trial court to vacate
its order of February 5, 2015, and to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with
this opinion.
PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on July 17, 2015
Opinion Delivered August 13, 2015
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3