• Atlanta
• Boston
• Dallas
• Ft. Lauderdale
• London
• Minneapolis
• New York
• Oakland
• Philadelphia
• Washington, DC

by Adrienne Nelson

In a per curiam memorandum opinion issued on July 14, 2026, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston conditionally granted a writ of mandamus directing a Harris County trial court to rule on two long-pending motions in an insurance dispute — a motion to compel appraisal and a motion for abatement — that had languished without action for close to a year. The decision in In re Independent Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 14-26-00503-CV, 2026 WL 2029725 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 14, 2026, orig. proceeding), offers a pointed reminder to trial courts that unreasonable delays in ruling on properly submitted motions constitute an abuse of discretion subject to mandamus relief.

The case arose from a property insurance claim filed by policyholders Juan Pablo Cofre and Carolina Carbajal Solis (Juan and Carolina collectively, the “Insureds”) after a July 2024 storm damaged their insured property. In February 2025, the Insureds sued Independent Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Independent Mutual”) for breach of contract, alleging that the insurance company underpaid or denied their claim. The Insureds also brought actions for bad faith and violations of Texas Insurance Code section 542.058.

On March 3, 2025, Independent Mutual filed its answer, which included a motion to compel appraisal and a motion for abatement. Following, on April 15, 2025, Independent Mutual filed a notice of submission, which set the motion to compel appraisal and motion for abatement by submission on May 19, 2025. Then the case sat waiting for a ruling.

On January 8, 2026, Independent Mutual filed a formal Request for the Court’s Rulings. However, the trial court took no action. On May 15, 2026, Independent Mutual filed a mandamus petition seeking a ruling on the Motion to Compel Appraisal and Motion to Abate.

On June 2, 2026, a status conference revealed the trial court’s apparent misunderstanding of appellate precedent: the court told counsel that the “only way” to obtain a ruling was to reset the motions on the “law-day docket” rather than the submission docket. Indep. Mut., 2026 WL 2029725, *2. The appellate court flatly rejected that position, reaffirming its well-established rule that a party demanding a ruling may bring the matter to the court’s attention either by setting it for submission or for a hearing. Id.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals applied the familiar two-part mandamus test, requiring the Independent Mutual, as relator, to show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at *1. Regarding the first prong, the appellate court reiterated that when a motion is properly filed and pending, ruling on it is a ministerial act, and failure to do so within a reasonable time constitutes an abuse of discretion. Id. As to the second prong, the court noted that a relator generally lacks an adequate remedy by appeal from a trial court’s refusal to rule on a pending motion. Id. at *3.

The appellate court acknowledged that there is no bright-line rule for what constitutes a “reasonable” time for a trial court to act, as the analysis depends on the circumstances of each case. Nevertheless, the court found that nearly a year without a ruling was clearly unreasonable. Id. at *2. The court drew support from its prior decision in In re Hoffman, No. 14-21-00697-CV, 2022 WL 288046, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14^th Dist.] Feb. 1, 2022, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.), as well as the First Court of Appeals’ holding in In re The Univ. of Tex. MD Anderson Cancer Ctr., No. 01-19-00201-CV, 2019 WL 3418567, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 30, 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.), that a delay of more than twelve months on a plea to the jurisdiction constitutes an abuse of discretion. Indep. Mut., 2026 WL 2029725, *2.

This decision carries several practical implications for insurance litigators in Texas. First, it underscores the importance of creating a clear paper trail when seeking a ruling — filing notices of submission, requesting hearings, and following up with formal written requests for rulings are all steps that can support a later mandamus petition. Second, the opinion serves as a directive to any trial court that might insist on only one procedural path for obtaining a ruling, confirming that submission is an equally valid mechanism. Finally, the case reinforces that mandamus remains a viable tool when a trial court’s inaction effectively stalls the litigation process, particularly in first-party insurance disputes where appraisal is a threshold contractual mechanism. 

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.