In re Homesite Insurance Company

No. 13-26-00201-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 18, 2026) (mem. op.) · Texas Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi–Edinburg · June 18, 2026 · No. 13-26-00201-CV

Summary

The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied Homesite Insurance Company's petition for writ of mandamus challenging the denial of its amended motion to compel appraisal in an insurance coverage dispute involving storm-related property damage. The court concluded that Homesite had not met its burden to obtain mandamus relief and lifted the previously imposed stay.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi–Edinburg
Writing for the Court
Jenny Cron; Chief Justice Tijerina; Justice West; Justice Cron
Jurisdiction
Texas Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi–Edinburg
Decision date
June 18, 2026
Docket number
13-26-00201-CV
Procedural posture
Homesite Insurance Company petitioned for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's denial of its amended motion to compel appraisal in an insurance-coverage lawsuit involving storm-related property damage.
Standard of review
Mandamus relief requires a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal. A court abuses its discretion when no evidence supports the ruling or when the court could reasonably have reached only a contrary conclusion. The relator bears the burden to establish entitlement to mandamus relief, and adequacy of an appellate remedy is evaluated through a benefits-and-detriments analysis and consideration of the specific circumstances and equitable principles.
Precedential value
Published memorandum opinion; no reporter citation appears in the provided text.
Parties
Homesite Insurance Company v. Roberto Garcia
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

writ of certiorariappellate procedureinsurance coveragecivil procedureremedies

Practice areas

appellate procedureinsurancecivil procedureremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion by denying Homesite's amended motion to compel appraisal.
  2. Whether Homesite established that it lacked an adequate remedy by appeal and was entitled to mandamus relief.

Holdings

  1. Homesite did not meet its burden to establish entitlement to mandamus relief, so the petition for writ of mandamus was denied.

Key quotations

Mandamus is an ‘extraordinary remedy’ that is ‘available only in limited circumstances.’
A writ of mandamus is available to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal.

Factual background

The underlying lawsuit concerns insurance coverage for storm-related property damage. Homesite sought to compel appraisal, but the trial court denied its amended motion. Homesite then sought mandamus relief from the court of appeals.

Procedural history

The trial court denied Homesite's amended motion to compel appraisal. Homesite sought mandamus relief in the court of appeals, which had previously denied relief concerning Homesite's original motion to compel appraisal. The court denied the present petition and lifted the previously imposed stay.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…