From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Texas Mut. Ins.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland
Mar 10, 2005
No. 11-05-00065-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 10, 2005)

Opinion

No. 11-05-00065-CV

March 10, 2005.

Original Mandamus Proceeding.

Panel consists of: ARNOT, C.J., and WRIGHT, J., and McCALL, J.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


This is an original mandamus proceeding stemming from an action in which the relator, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, intervened. In its petition for writ of mandamus, relator seeks to vacate the following actions taken by the trial court: (1) an oral order "granting Plaintiffs' nonsuit of all claims, except for the claim of the Estate"; (2) an oral order denying "reimbursement of [relator's] statutory subrogation interest"; (3) an oral order requiring relator "to continue future payments of death benefits," thereby denying any future credit/advance for the amount recovered by the plaintiffs in the judgment and settlement with the defendants; and (4) the judgment insofar as it deprives relator of its subrogation interest and future credit/advance. We deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available "only in situations involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies." Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). Mandamus will not issue absent "compelling circumstances." Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 681 (Tex. 1996). To obtain mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion or a violation of a legal duty for which there is no adequate remedy at law. In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41, 56 (Tex. 1998); Walker v. Packer, supra at 839-40. A party establishes that no adequate remedy at law exists by showing that he is in real danger of permanently losing his substantial rights. Canadian Helicopters Limited v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Tex. 1994).

In this case, relator admits that it "may have a remedy by appeal" but contends that the remedy would come too late and would cause a loss to relator's substantial rights because of the possible cost to relator. Generally, an appellate remedy is adequate even though it involves delay and more expense than an extraordinary writ. In re Masonite Corp., 997 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Tex. 1999). Relator has not shown that it is in danger of permanently losing any substantial rights. Consequently, we hold that relator has not established that it has no adequate remedy at law. See Walker v. Packer, supra.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.


Summaries of

In re Texas Mut. Ins.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland
Mar 10, 2005
No. 11-05-00065-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 10, 2005)
Case details for

In re Texas Mut. Ins.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland

Date published: Mar 10, 2005

Citations

No. 11-05-00065-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 10, 2005)