In Re Elevate Reciprocal Exchange v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 5, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00011-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00011-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ELEVATE RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Elevate Reciprocal Exchange asserts that

the trial court abused its discretion by denying relator’s motion to compel appraisal in the

underlying suit. We deny relief.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if its “decision is

‘so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law’” or if it

errs in “‘determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts,’ even when the law

is unsettled.” In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 247 (Tex. 2021) (orig.

proceeding) (cleaned up) (quoting first Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839, then In re Prudential

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the response filed by real party in interest Rogelio Vecchio III, is of the opinion that

relator has not met its burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, relator’s request to stay the

trial court proceedings, previously carried with the case, is denied, as is the petition for

writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.4, 52.8, 52.10.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 5th day of February, 2025.