In re Reynolds
369 S.W.3d 638
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Richard Sharp sued James Reynolds, Pelhams Industrial Warehouse, Inc., and Farm Bureau for injuries from a collision involving a Reynolds tractor-trailer in Shelby County, Texas.
- Sharp seeks UIM benefits from Farm Bureau’s predecessor insurer, asserting all conditions for recovery have been satisfied and requesting policy limits.
- Relators moved to sever Sharp’s claim against Farm Bureau and transfer venue to Tarrant County, arguing Farm Bureau was improperly joined and Sharp’s Farm Bureau claim was not ripe.
- The trial court denied the motions to transfer venue and, after hearings, denied severance but later granted Sharp’s request to reconsider, without a written order, prompting mandamus review.
- Relators contend severance is required to avoid injecting insurance into the trial and to permit venue transfer; Sharp argues venue is proper in Shelby County and the claims are interwoven.
- The court ultimately held that severance was proper to avoid manifest injustice, and that venue should be transferred to Tarrant County upon severance; mandamus relief was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to reconsider venue ruling | Relators contend trial court could reconsider its venue ruling. | Court lacked authority to reconsider denied venue motion once ruled. | Trial court had authority to reconsider its venue ruling. |
| Severance to avoid insurance prejudice | Severance unnecessary; two claims arise from same transaction. | Severance necessary to prevent insurance from contaminating liability issues and avoid prejudice. | Severance of Farm Bureau claim is proper to avoid prejudice and inject no insurance prejudgment. |
| Ripeness and venue fixation by Section 1952.110 | Section 1952.110 mandates Shelby County venue because Sharp resided there and policy exists. | UIM claim against Farm Bureau is not ripe; venue should not fix here. | Assuming proper pleading, Sharp’s UIM claim against Farm Bureau can fix venue in Shelby County. |
| Venue after severance and derivative venue | Section 15.005 derivatives fix venue for all claims if one is proper in Shelby. | With severance, derivative venue does not govern Relators’ claims; general venue statute applies and favors Tarrant County. | After severance, venue for Relators’ claims should transfer to Tarrant County. |
| Adequacy of appellate remedy (mandamus available) | Mandamus is unnecessary; remedies on appeal exist. | Appellate remedy would be inadequate and would require two trials; mandamus appropriate. | Mandamus review is appropriate; relators have no adequate remedy by appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619 (Tex.2007) (mandamus standards and balancing benefits vs. detriments)
- In re Poly-America, 262 S.W.3d 337 (Tex.2008) (mandamus standards; adequacy of appellate remedy)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.1992) (arbitrary or unreasonable discretion; law application on review)
- Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257 (Tex.2008) (adequacy of appellate remedy balancing considerations)
- Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.1990) (interwoven vs. severable claims; considerations for severance)
- Foremost Ins. Co., 966 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998) (evidence of insurance and prejudice in concurrent trials)