Supreme Court
Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass’n v. Pruski
- Case number: 23-0447
- Legal category: Jurisdiction
- Subtype: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Set for oral argument: February 21, 2024
Case Summary
This case concerns the effect of a statutory provision requiring that certain insurance-coverage disputes be presided over by a judge appointed by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation.
The Texas Windstorm Insurance Association is a quasi-governmental body created by Chapter 2210 of the Insurance Code to provide an adequate market for windstorm and hail insurance in the seacoast territory of Texas. Section 2210.575 authorizes a TWIA policyholder to sue the association after it denies coverage of a claim, but subsection (e) requires that “an action brought under this subsection . . . be presided over by a judge appointed by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation.”
Stephen Pruski’s beachfront home was damaged by Hurricane Harvey. After receiving what he considered to be partial payment from TWIA, Pruski sued the association in Nueces County district court. The judge assigned to the case was not appointed by the MDL panel. After the court granted summary judgment for TWIA, Pruski appealed, claiming that the judgment is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court of appeals agreed and reversed. The court held that the panel-appointment process is mandatory; that Pruski did not waive his right to an MDL-appointed judge; and that the summary judgment is void because the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
TWIA filed a petition for review, arguing that Pruski waived his right to an MDL-appointed judge and that the summary judgment is not void in any event because the statutory requirement of an MDL-appointed judge does not affect a trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the petition for review.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.