Case Information
*0 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/23/2015 7:55:29 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk NO. 03-15-00451-CV THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 9/23/2015 7:55:29 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE AUSTIN, TEXAS 03-15-00451-CV *1 ACCEPTED [7070314] CLERK ANGELA BROOKS-BROWN § IN THE THIRD
§
v. § COURT OF APPEALS
§
USAA TEXAS LLOYD’S COMPANY § AUSTIN, TEXAS
APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Appellant asks the Court to deny appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
A. I NTRODUCTION 1. Appellant is Angela Brooks-Brown (Appellee or Plaintiff); appellee is USAA Texas Lloyd’s Company (“USAA,” Appellee, or Defendant).
B. A RGUMENT & A UTHORITIES 2. Although the Court has authority to dismiss an appeal if the appeal is moot, this is not a case in which the Court should do so. See Nat’l
Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones , 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999).
3. This appeal comes under an exception to the mootness doctrine because the issue in this appeal is capable of repetition, yet will continue to
evade review. Blum v. Lanier , 997 S.W.2d 259, 264 (Tex. 1999); State v. Lodge ,
608 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tex. 1980). Specifically, the exception applies because
(1) the challenged conduct is of such short duration that it could not be
reviewed before the appeal became moot, and (2) there is a reasonable
expectation that the challenged conduct will occur again if the appeal is not
considered. Blum , 997 S.W.2d at 264.
4. USAA issued an insurance policy to appellant that contained the following appraisal clause:
“If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either may demand an
appraisal of the loss. In this event, each party will choose a competent and
impartial appraiser within 20 days after receiving a written request from
the other. The two appraisers will choose an umpire. If they cannot agree
upon an umpire within 15 days, you or we may request that the choice be
made by a judge of a court of record in the state where the “residence
premises” is located . The appraisers will separately set the amount of the
loss. If the appraisers submit a written report of an agreement to us, the
amount agreed upon will be the amount of loss. If they fail to agree, they
will submit their differences to the umpire. A decision agreed to by any
two will set the amount of loss.” (CR 893).
5. Appellant demanded appraisal of the loss on March 5, 2015 and provided USAA with the identity of its appraiser on April 20, 2015. (CR
432, 434). USAA identified its appraiser on April 23, 2015. (CR 638). On or
about June 6, 2015, appellant filed a petition in County Court at Law No. 1
of Jefferson County, Texas asking that court to appoint an umpire. (CR
534, 841). USAA then filed a Motion for Appointment of Umpire in
Appraisal Proceeding in the 146 th Judicial District Court of Bell County,
Texas on June 9, 2015. (CR 420). In addition, USAA filed an application for
temporary injunction in Bell County asking that court to enjoin appellant
from proceeding in the Jefferson County action. (CR 569). The Bell County
court granted USAA’s application for temporary injunction and granted
USAA’s motion for appointment of appraisal umpire. (CR 928). The Bell
County court quickly appointed an umpire on July 10, 2015. (CR 686).
Appellant filed her notice of appeal on July 21, 2015. (CR 932). The umpire
issued an appraisal award on August 13, 2015, which was one day after the
clerk’s record was filed and twenty days before the reporter’s record was
filed in this court of appeals. See Exhibit A to Appellee’s Motion to
Dismiss.
6. The conduct of defendant that plaintiff challenges in this appeal was of such short duration that it could not be reviewed before the appeal
became moot. Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal on July 21, 2015. (CR 932).
The appraisal umpire issued an award on August 13, 2015, which was
twenty days before the reporter’s record was filed. Once the Bell County
court appointed an umpire, the extrajudicial appraisal process proceeded
with lighting speed and rendered a review of defendant’s conduct an
impossibility.
7. Counsel for plaintiff is lead counsel on several other cases pending in Bell County, Texas in which a USAA insurance company is defendant.
Each of these cases involves insurance policies that contain appraisal
language that is identical to the appraisal language contained in the
insurance policy at issue in this appeal. Counsel for plaintiff, on behalf of
the plaintiffs in one or more of those cases, intends to ask courts located
outside of the counties in which those properties are located to appoint
umpires for appraisal proceedings. In addition, in future lawsuits that
plaintiff’s counsel files against USAA, plaintiff’s counsel intends to follow
the same course of action if the insurance policies in those cases expressly
allow either party to ask any court in the state of Texas to appoint an
appraisal umpire. Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that the
challenged conduct will occur again if the appeal is not considered.
C. C ONCLUSION & P RAYER 8. USAA has sold insurance policies to consumers that contain language which expressly allows USAA’s insureds to ask any judge in the
state of Texas to appoint an appraisal umpire. When an insured asks a
Texas court to appoint an umpire, USAA then files an injunction
application and asks a different court to appoint an umpire. Once the
application for injunction is granted and the court that USAA petitioned
appoints an umpire, the umpire makes a quick decision and allows USAA
to argue on appeal that the case is moot. This strategy allows USAA to
deny its policyholders rights to which they are entitled under the policy.
Because the challenged conduct is of such short duration that it could not
be reviewed before the appeal became moot, and because there is a
reasonable expectation that the challenged conduct will occur again if the
appeal is not considered, the court should apply an exception to the
mootness doctrine and consider the appeal.
9. For these reasons, appellant asks the Court to deny appellee’s motion and continue with this appeal.
Respectfully Submitted, S COTT L AW O FFICES 350 Pine Street, Suite 300 Beaumont, Texas 77701 Telephone: (409) 833-5400 Facsimile: (409) 833-5405 /s/ Danny Ray Scott ______________________________ Danny Ray Scott State Bar No. 24010920 Email:danny@scottlawyers.com S EAN M. P ATTERSON State Bar No. 24073546 Email: sean@scottlawyers.com V IRGINIA I ZAGUIRRE State Bar No. 24083230 Email: virginia@scottlawyers.com Attorneys for Plaintiff *8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the parties listed below electronically though the
court’s electronic-filing manager on September 23, 2015:
Lisa A. Songy
T OLLEFSON B RADLEY M ITCHELL & M ELENDI , LLP
2811 McKinney Avenue, Suite 250 West
Dallas, Texas 75204
E-Mail Address: LisaS@tbmmlaw.com
/s/ Danny Ray Scott ______________________________ Danny Ray Scott