Insured Can’t Sit on a Lawsuit to Punish the Defendant
Post 4866
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/d6ej3NUh, shttps://lnkd.in/d6ej3NUh, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Almost every litigating lawyer has tried to get an appellate court to grant a writ of mandate to overturn an error or abuse by a trial court. Successful writs of mandate are as rare as a snowstorm in the Sahara.
Regardless, Allstate Texas Lloyd’s (Allstate) tried by a petition for writ of mandamus, where relators Allstate and James Stabler contend that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss the underlying insurance coverage dispute for want of prosecution.
In In Re Allstate Texas Lloyd’s And James Stabler, No. 13-24-00395-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (August 26, 2024) surprised all and granted the writ of mandate.
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 2017, real parties in interest Julio and Rachel de la Garza filed suit against relators for denying or underpaying their claim for property damages sustained to their home as a result of a 2015 storm. The de la Garzas alleged that Stabler was the adjuster on the claim, and they asserted various causes of action including breach of contract, violations of the insurance code, deceptive trade practices, and bad faith.
On August 10, 2017, relators filed their original answer to the de la Garzas’ lawsuit. On May 3, 2019, relators filed a motion to dismiss the case for want of prosecution on grounds that the de la Garzas had not instituted any activity in the case since 2017. Relators alleged that the de la Garzas had not taken any action to lift the abatement by filing a controverting affidavit regarding their alleged failure to give notice, or by providing the required notice, and had otherwise taken no steps to prosecute the case.
On June 17, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on relators’ motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. Relators assert that, at this hearing, the trial court ordered the de la Garzas to provide relators with the requisite statutory notice by July 1, 2019, and the de la Garzas did so on July 3, 2019.
On December 11, 2023, the trial court set the case for hearing on its dismissal docket; however, no notice of this hearing was provided to the parties. Nevertheless, that same day, the de la Garzas filed a verified motion to retain the case on the docket.
On March 22, 2024, relators filed their second motion to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. On April 24, 2024, the parties mediated the case; however, mediation was unsuccessful. On April 25, 2024, the de la Garzas filed a second motion requesting the trial court to retain the case on its docket.
THE RESPONSE
Aside from filing their lawsuit in 2017 and propounding initial discovery, the only action the de la Garzas have taken to prosecute their case has been filing a motion to mediate on January 31, 2020, filing a Motion to Retain on December 11, 2023, and engaging in unsuccessful mediation on April 24, 2024. The de la Garzas provided no excuse – much less a reasonable excuse for delay for any of the time periods this case has been pending.
On May 1, 2024, the trial court signed an order which granted the de la Garzas’ second motion to retain the case and denied relators’ second motion to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. This original proceeding ensued.
MANDAMUS
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. The trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law
Mandamus relief is appropriate when a trial court abuses its discretion.
Dismissals for Want of Prosecution
The plaintiff has a duty to prosecute its lawsuit to a conclusion with reasonable diligence, and if that duty is not fulfilled, the trial court may dismiss the case for want of prosecution. A delay of an unreasonable duration if not sufficiently explained, will raise a conclusive presumption of abandonment of the plaintiff’s suit. This conclusive presumption justifies the dismissal of a suit under the trial court’s inherent power.
The Texas Rules of Judicial Administration require district and statutory county courts to ensure, so far as reasonably possible, that civil cases in which a jury has been demanded, other than those arising under the Family Code, are brought to trial or final disposition within eighteen months of the appearance date.
ANALYSIS
The de la Garzas filed their original petition against relators on July 13, 2017; thus, their lawsuit has been pending more than seven years. This period far exceeds the eighteen-month time frame for disposition of the case as set forth in the administrative rules.
The de la Garzas assert that the case is set for trial in less than six months and, considering the circumstances, they have been reasonably active pursuing this case.
In July 2017, the de la Garzas filed their original petition, including requests for disclosures, and in September 2017, they responded to relators’ requests for disclosures.
Although the record indicates that the de la Garzas occasionally engaged in brief periods of activity on the case, the record also indicates that there are several extensive periods of inaction. Actions taken after a motion to dismiss is filed, including the obtaining of a trial setting or filing of a jury demand, do not enter into the analysis of whether diligence has been exercised.
The de la Garzas’ proffered reasons for the delay do not offer a reasonable explanation or otherwise establish good cause for the delay. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that they failed to prosecute their lawsuit against relators to a conclusion with reasonable diligence, and the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant relators’ second motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. Relators lack an adequate remedy by appeal and the Court of Appeals sustained the sole issue presented in this original proceeding and granted the petition for writ of mandamus and directED the trial court to vacate its May 10, 2024 order denying relators’ second motion to dismiss and to enter an order granting that motion.
ZALMA OPINION
Many people think that if they sue an insurance company for bad faith the insurance company will open its checkbook and pay off the plaintiff as it demands. That is not true and it wasn’t true with regard to the de la Garzas’ suit against Allstate. Doing nothing much for seven years is not just sloth it is ridiculous and forced an appellate court to do something it does not like to do, grant a petition for mandamus and order the trial court to dismiss the suit.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
