INSURANCE-RELATED COURT CASES
Digested from case reports published online
COURT DECISIONS
Was judge qualified to hear case?
Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA) is a quasi-government body that serves as an insurer of last resort, offering windstorm and hail insurance to residential and commercial property owners in the coastal region of Texas who cannot get this coverage in the regular market because of the risk of catastrophic hurricanes. TWIA’s organization, operations, and all related matters are governed by the Texas insurance code.
TWIA insured Stephen Pruski’s beachfront condominium in Port Aransas against hail and windstorm damage. Pruski filed two claims with TWIA after Hurricane Harvey and a subsequent storm, and TWIA partially accepted and partially denied coverage for both claims. Pruski, proceeding as his own counsel, served TWIA with a notice of intent to sue and subsequently filed suit in Nueces County District Court, seeking damages for TWIA’s alleged improper denial of coverage.
Pruski subsequently moved to recuse the judge appointed to hear his case, claiming she was biased and unqualified because, among other reasons, she had not been appointed by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation (MDL). The judge declined to recuse and referred Pruski’s motion to the regional administrative judge, who denied it. TWIA then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the damages for which Pruski sought recovery were not covered by his policy as a matter of law.
The district court granted the motion and rendered a final, take-nothing judgment for TWIA. Pruski appealed, arguing in part that the judge was not qualified to render judgment because she had not been appointed by the MDL.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that a trial judge who is not appointed by the MDL panel is “without authority to render judgment” in a suit. Accordingly, the court held that the district court’s judgment was void and remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment.
The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed, stating: “We cannot agree that the fact that the judge was not appointed by the MDL panel ‘disqualified’ her from sitting in the case.”
To the extent that the insurance code requires that the judge be “an active judge” and a “resident of the county in which the loss that is the basis of the disputed denied coverage occurred or of a first tier coastal county or a second tier coastal county adjacent to the county in which that loss occurred”—there is no dispute that the judge met those qualifications.
According to the court: “Cer-tainly, the statutory procedure for assigning a judge in a suit against TWIA was not followed. But failure to comply with a statute, while it may render a judgment erroneous and voidable, does not necessarily render the judgment void.”
The court stated: “We conclude that the best course is to remand the case to the court of appeals to address those issues, along with TWIA’s remaining waiver argument, in the first instance.”
Texas Windstorm Insurance Asso-ciation v. Pruski—Supreme Court of Texas—No. 23-0447—February 21, 2024.
