In re Southland Lloyds Insurance CompanyAppeal from 293rd Judicial District Court of Zavala County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00437-CV IN RE SOUTHLAND LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 28, 2013 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On July 11, 2013, relator Southland Lloyds Insurance Company filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking review of the trial court s stated reasons for granting a new trial after previously granting traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment in favor of relator. Texas trial courts are afforded broad discretion in granting new trials. See Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tex. 1985). To date, the Texas Supreme Court has only provided for a very limited review of a trial court s order granting a new trial after a jury s verdict. See In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685, 686 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding); In re Columbia Med. Ctr., 290 S.W.3d 204, 209-10 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). This court has previously declined to conduct a substantive review of a trial court s stated reasons for granting a 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 10-12-12408-ZCV, styled Estefana Loera v. Southland Lloyds Insurance Company, pending in the 293rd Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas, the Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz presiding. 04-13-00437-CV new trial on mandamus. See In re Discount Tire Co. of Tex., No. 04-12-00850-CV, 2013 WL 241953 (Tex. App. San Antonio Jan. 23, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op); In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 04-11-00708-CV, 2011 WL 4830177 (Tex. App. San Antonio Oct. 12, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Camp Mystic, Inc., No. 04-11-00694-CV, 2011 WL 4591194 (Tex. App. San Antonio Oct. 5, 2011, orig. proceeding). Because we conclude the trial court s orders in this case satisfy the requirement for specificity set out in In re Columbia and further articulated in In re United Scaffolding, no further review is available on mandamus. See United Scaffolding, 377 S.W.3d at 688; Columbia Med. Ctr., 290 S.W.3d at 213; see also Discount Tire, 2013 WL 241953, at *1. Having considered relator s petition for writ of mandamus and the response filed by real party in interest Estefana Loera, the court is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
