434 S.W.3d 345
Tex. J.P.M.L.2014Background
- National Lloyds seeks to consolidate 26 cases into three MDLs and include future related cases.
- Cases are grouped geographically: 17 North Texas, 5 Central Texas, 4 Southeast Texas; losses span 2009–2013.
- Plaintiffs oppose, arguing lack of relatedness and arbitrariness of geographic groups; seek sanctions.
- Panel relies on Rule 13.3 and precedent limiting relatedness to more than common claims handling.
- Panel concludes the cases are not related and denies transfer and sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the 26 cases related for MDL transfer? | Cases are not related; weather events vary; only common is business practices. | Cases are related by similar weather events and common claims handling. | Not related; transfer denied. |
| Do the cases exhibit sufficient proximity (geographic/temporal) to be related? | Not demonstrated; wide geographic and time spread. | Weather proximity and common practices justify relatedness. | Insufficient proximity; MDL transfer denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co. Hurricane Litig., 422 S.W.3d 926 (Tex.M.D.L. Panel 2013) (relatedness requires more than common business practices and weather events)
- In re Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass’n Hurricanes Rita and Humberto Litig., 339 S.W.3d 384 (Tex.M.D.L. 2008) (windstorm-related MDLs; proximity considerations)
- In re State Farm Lloyds Hurricane Litig., 387 S.W.3d 130 (Tex.M.D.L. Panel 2013) (claims-handling changes over time affect relatedness)