Stephen Pruski v. Texas Windstorm Insurance Association

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 13-21-00167-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-21-00167-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

STEPHEN PRUSKI, Appellant,

v.

TEXAS WINDSTORM INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 117TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña1 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This cause is before the Court on pro se appellant Stephen Pruski’s motion to

dismiss the appeal.

1 This appeal was originally decided by a panel of this Court on February 23, 2023. Pruski v. Tex.

Windstorm Ins. Ass’n, 667 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 23, 2023). The Honorable Nora Longoria was an original member of the panel on submission; however, she did not participate in this decision because her term of office expired on December 31, 2024. This case has a lengthy procedural history. Pruski sued appellee Texas Windstorm

Insurance Association (TWIA) complaining that TWIA “improperly denied portions of [his]

claim for damages from Hurricane Harvey.” See TEX. INS. CODE ANN. §§ 2210.001–.705.

TWIA filed a traditional motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted and

ordered that Pruski take nothing from TWIA. Pruski appealed, raising four issues

challenging the trial court’s judgment. Among other things, Pruski challenged the

presiding judge’s authority to preside over his lawsuit because the judge was never

appointed by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in accordance with

§ 2210.575(e) of the insurance code. See id. § 2210.575(e). This Court sustained the

issue, reversed the trial court’s judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court. See

Pruski v. Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass’n, 667 S.W.3d 460, 461–67 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg, 2023), rev’d and remanded, 689 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2024).

Subsequently, the Texas Supreme Court reversed this Court’s judgment and remanded

the case to this Court for further proceedings. See Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass’n, 689 S.W.3d

at 893.

After mandate issued by the Texas Supreme Court, Pruski filed his motion to

dismiss appeal. In said motion, Pruski states that “[t]his controversy has settled” and he

requests this Court to dismiss this appeal in accordance with Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We commend the parties

for settling the controversy formerly at issue in this case.

The Court, having considered Pruski’s motion to dismiss appeal, is of the opinion

that the motion should be granted. See Id. (allowing the Court to dismiss an appeal “[i]n

2 accordance with a motion of appellant”). Accordingly, we grant Pruski’s motion, and the

appeal is hereby dismissed. The costs are taxed against Pruski. See id. R. 42.1(d)

(“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.”). Having

dismissed the appeal at Pruski’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 27th day of January, 2026.