In re Wellington Insurance Co. Hailstorm Litigation
427 S.W.3d 581
| Tex. J.P.M.L. | 2014Background
- MDL Panel established a pretrial court in 2013 for first-party hailstorm insurance suits arising from two Hidalgo County hailstorms; dozens of additional insurer cases were brought into that MDL via Administrative Rule 13’s tag-along procedure.
- State Farm Lloyds declined to acquiesce to being tagged into the existing MDL and moved to remand its cases to the original trial courts; the MDL pretrial court denied remand after a hearing.
- State Farm sought rehearing before the MDL Panel, arguing its cases were not "related" to the matters already in the MDL.
- The central legal question was whether the State Farm cases involved common contested factual questions (beyond the shared weather event) sufficient to establish "relatedness" under Rule 13.2(f) and thus permit tag-along treatment.
- The Panel reviewed its prior precedents on relatedness in weather-event insurance MDLs and concluded relatedness requires contested common fact issues (e.g., allegations of similar claims-handling practices), not merely the same uncontested weather event.
- The Panel reversed the pretrial court’s denial of remand and ordered the State Farm cases returned to their original trial courts, finding they were not related to the existing MDL matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State Farm’s cases are "related" to existing MDL matters under Rule 13.2(f) | The tag-along designation is proper because the cases arise from the same hail events and fit within the MDL framework | State Farm: shared weather event alone is insufficient; there are no common contested business-practice facts linking State Farm to other insurers | Not related — shared weather event alone does not establish relatedness absent common contested questions about business practices; remand granted |
| Standard of review on MDL Panel rehearing of a pretrial court’s tag-along remand decision | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Abuse-of-discretion review applies to the pretrial court’s initial tag-along/remand decision; relatedness is a threshold legal question that panel may decide on rehearing |
| Whether the tag-along process can substitute for an original Rule 13 transfer when cases are not related | Plaintiffs urged alternative Rule 13.3 transfer to consolidate State Farm with the MDL | State Farm opposed transfer, asserting lack of relatedness | Panel denied alternative transfer because it rests on the rejected premise of relatedness; parties remain free to file an original transfer motion arguing intra-State Farm relatedness |
| Proper factors for determining relatedness in weather-event insurance MDLs | Plaintiffs: common event and efficiency justify MDL inclusion | State Farm: must show contested common factual questions (e.g., similar claims-handling practices) beyond the weather event | Relatedness requires common contested factual questions (e.g., allegations of uniform business practices); mere occurrence of the same weather event is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Deepwater Horizon Incident Litig., 387 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2011) (distinguishes mere common event from relatedness when factual issues differ)
- In re Delta Lloyds Ins. Co., 339 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2008) (holding a common natural event alone does not establish relatedness; common contested business-practice allegations can)
- In re Texas Windstorm Ins. Ass’n Hurricanes Rita and Humberto Litig., 339 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2009) (granting MDL where extra-contractual, uniform practices claims supplied relatedness)
- In re National Lloyds Ins. Co. Hurricane Litig., 422 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2013) (articulating that significant weather events plus allegations of similar standard business practices supply relatedness)
- In re Silica Prods. Liab. Litig., 166 S.W.3d 3 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2004) (rejecting the notion that legal rights depend on the number of litigants asserting them)
- In re Toyota Unintended Acceleration Litig., 398 S.W.3d 892 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2010) (confirming same relatedness and convenience-efficiency analysis applies on rehearing of a tag-along remand)