in Re Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company
13-21-00083-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 31, 2021Background
- On January 12, 2017, Lozano was injured in a car accident with an underinsured/uninsured driver and submitted a UIM/UM claim to Farmers. Lozano alleges Farmers’ adjuster offered less than incurred medicals and gave an inadequate explanation.
- Lozano sued only Farmers under the Texas Insurance Code (claims under §§ 541.060(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(7), and §§ 541.151–.152), seeking actual damages, attorney’s fees, and treble damages, but she did not assert a breach-of-contract/UIM-benefits claim.
- Farmers filed a plea to the jurisdiction and, alternatively, a motion to abate, arguing Lozano’s extra‑contractual claims are unripe because she has not obtained a judgment establishing the third party’s liability and the amount of damages (prerequisites to UIM entitlement).
- The trial court denied Farmers’ plea/motion to abate; Farmers sought mandamus relief. The court of appeals granted conditional mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its order and abate the statutory claims.
- The court applied Texas Supreme Court precedent requiring an insured to establish entitlement to policy benefits (or plead an independent injury) before recovering those benefits as Insurance Code damages, concluding Lozano alleged no injury independent of her right to UIM benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness/standing to pursue extra‑contractual Insurance Code claims before establishing UIM entitlement | Lozano: claims are statutory torts independent of the policy and do not require prior judicial establishment of UIM entitlement | Farmers: extra‑contractual claims are unripe until insured establishes insurer's contractual liability and UIM entitlement | Held: Claims are unripe; Lozano did not allege an injury independent of policy benefits, so entitlement to benefits must be determined first |
| Whether an insured can seek Insurance Code damages that effectively recoup policy benefits without a prior breach‑of‑contract adjudication | Lozano: statutory damages arise from adjuster’s misconduct and are recoverable even absent a contract claim | Farmers: recovery would be predicated on policy benefits and thus precluded until policy entitlement is established | Held: Recovery that is predicated on policy benefits is barred absent prior establishment of those benefits (Menchaca line) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying plea to jurisdiction/abatement and allowing discovery on alleged unripe statutory claims | Lozano: denying abatement is proper because she pleads only statutory claims and discovery is needed | Farmers: denial forces litigation of claims that may be mooted and prejudices insurer (privilege/work‑product issues) | Held: Denial was an abuse of discretion; abatement/severance (or bifurcation) is required to prevent undue prejudice |
| Adequacy of appellate remedy (is mandamus appropriate?) | Lozano: Farmers delayed and has adequate appellate remedies | Farmers: would suffer irreparable waste of time/resources and lose protections if forced to litigate unripe statutory claims; appeal is inadequate | Held: Mandamus appropriate; insurer lacks adequate remedy by appeal under the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2018) (insurer‑benefit entitlement must be established before recovering those benefits as Insurance Code damages)
- Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins., 216 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2007) (elements for UIM recovery and claim not presented until judgment resolving those elements)
- Republic Ins. Co. v. Stoker, 903 S.W.2d 338 (Tex. 1995) (recognizes that an insurer’s conduct can, in rare cases, cause injury independent of the policy claim)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus appropriate where appellate remedy is inadequate due to wasted time/resources)
- In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus standards — extraordinary remedy to correct clear abuse of discretion)
- In re Laibe, 307 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2010) (laches/delay considerations in seeking mandamus)
