In Re Robison, 335 S.W.3d 776

Charles Robison was injured April 23, 2007 while working for West Star Transportation; the Robisons filed a personal injury action under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (Cause No. 2009-546,118); West Star, a non-subscriber, carried a $500,000 policy; the Robisons offered a Stowers settlement within policy limits with a deadline of May 8, 2009; West Star orally accepted on May 7, 2009 and faxed a written confirmation on May 8, 2009; no written, signed acceptance existed before May 8, 2009; the trial court denied the Robisons’ no-evidence MSJ on the settlement defense and later severed the contract counterclaim into Cause No. 2009-546,118-B; the contract action was abated pending adjudication of the counterclaim; the Robisons sought mandamus to dismiss the contract action, vacate abatement, and vacate counsel disqualification order; the petition was conditionally granted to the extent of directing dismissal of the contract action so that the other orders would be moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Robisons’ no-evidence MSJ on the contract claim.	Robison argues no written acceptance; settlement unenforceable.	West Star contends oral acceptance plus writing suffices under Rule 11.	Yes, abuse; no enforceable Rule 11 agreement.
Whether the oral acceptance complied with the “in writing” requirement of Rule 11.	Acceptance was oral; no written document signed by West Star.	Oral acceptance plus written confirmation satisfied the writing requirement.	No; oral acceptance does not satisfy writing requirement.
Whether West Star’s fax confirmation satisfied the Rule 11 writing requirement.	Fax confirmation should render the agreement in writing.	The deadline and lack of pre-deadline written acceptance prevent enforceability.	Immaterial; Rule 11 not satisfied due to lack of a signed, pre-deadline writing.
Whether the Robisons have an adequate remedy by appeal.	Delay and litigation over an unenforceable settlement undermine rights.	Appellate review could cure later, not mandamus relief.	No adequate remedy; mandamus relief appropriate.
Whether mandamus relief should direct dismissal of the contract action and moot related orders.	Relief is warranted to prevent abuse of Rule 11.	Writ relief is not proper to compel dismissal.	Conditionally granted to direct dismissal of contract action; remaining orders moot.

Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (Rule 11-like writing requirement; avoids oral settlements in pending suits)
Kennedy v. Hyde, 682 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. 1984) (Policy behind Rule 11; efficiency in settlements)
Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indem. Co., 15 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1929) (Settlement authority and expectation in insurance contexts)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (Adequacy of appellate remedy balancing mandamus considerations)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (Abuse of discretion standard for mandamus relief)
In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1998) (Mandamus relief when no adequate remedy by appeal; abuse of discretion)