NUMBER 13-17-00342-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE NANCY CANTU AND IGNACIO CANTU
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez1
This original proceeding arises from a dispute between insureds and their insurer
over the appointment of an appraiser under the insurance policy. Following a hail storm,
Nancy Cantu and Ignacio Cantu filed a claim under their homeowner’s insurance policy
with State Farm Lloyds for property damage, and ultimately filed a lawsuit against State
Farm Lloyds regarding their losses. State Farm invoked the appraisal clause in the
insurance policy. The Cantus appointed David Poyner as their appraiser. Poyner had
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in
any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
previously prepared an expert report for the Cantus regarding his estimate of the property
damages that they had incurred. State Farm objected to Poyner’s appointment on
grounds he was not qualified to serve as an appraiser under their insurance policy, which
requires the appointment of a “competent, disinterested appraiser.” After a hearing, the
trial court declined to allow Poyner to serve as an appraiser and ordered the Cantus to
appoint a “competent, disinterested appraiser.” By petition for writ of mandamus, the
Cantus allege that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Poyner to serve “absent any
evidence of actual bias.” This Court requested and received a response to the petition
for writ of mandamus from State Farm Lloyds. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300,
302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a
clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus
Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator
bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492
S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or
is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford
Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of
an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the
detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The
Texas Supreme Court has held that mandamus relief is appropriate to enforce an
2
appraisal clause. See, e.g., In re Universal Underwriters of Tex. Ins. Co., 345 S.W.3d
404, 412 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Allstate Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193,
196 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the amended petition for writ of
mandamus, the amended response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators
have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we LIFT the stay
previously imposed in this case and we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), 52.10(b).
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Delivered and filed the
2nd day of August, 2017.
3