Texas Supreme Court Expands Appellate Review of New Trial Orders

In an 8-0 decision handed down last Friday, the Texas Supreme Court set aside a district court's order granting a new trial in a Hurricane Ike insurance case. This opinion continues the high court's trend since 2009 toward sharply limiting Texas courts' discretion to grant new trials in civil cases.

The case, In re Stacey Bent and Mark Bent, involved a Texas couple's suit against USAA, their homeowners' insurer, for breach of the insurance policy and violations of the Texas Insurance Code springing from a dispute over a claim for damage to their home resulting from Hurricane Ike. At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that USAA did not breach the insurance policy but that it violated the Insurance Code by misrepresenting the terms of the policy. However, the trial court granted the Bents' motion for a new trial on the grounds that the finding that USAA did not breach the policy was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, that USAA had violated an order in limine, and that the evidence and law did not support several of the jury's other findings.

Texas courts, like those of other states, have the power to grant a new trial "for good cause," such as irregularities or the admission of improper evidence that prevented a party from receiving a fair trial, or to set aside a jury verdict that is unsupported by the evidence or against the great weight of the evidence. A Texas court's grant of a new trial is not normally appealable, and Texas courts once enjoyed nearly unfettered discretion to grant new trials in the interest of justice. It was often reasoned that the trial judge is in a better position than a panel of appellate judges-who were not present at trial-to determine whether justice demands a new trial. The Texas Supreme Court had even held that a trial court had discretion to grant a new trial for no reason other than it was "in the interest of justice."

However, since the Texas Supreme Court's landmark 2009 decision in In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Texas appellate courts have been increasingly willing to grant the "extraordinary" remedy of a writ of mandamus-an procedure normally reserved for the correction of "clear abuses of discretion" by trial courts where parties lack an "adequate appellate remedy"-to set aside orders granting a new trial. Prior to Columbia Medical Center, appellate review of a new trial order was largely unheard of. After Columbia Medical Center and United Scaffolding, handed down a year later, trial courts have been required to give specific reasons for granting a new trial, and may not rely on broad statements such as "in the interest of justice."

Having required trial courts to specifically explain the grant of new trials, it was perhaps only a matter of time before the Texas Supreme Court would take the next logical step. In 2013, in In re Toyota Motor Sales, USA, the Texas Supreme Court took that step and held that an appellate court may now examine the reasons stated by the trial court for granting a new trial and set aside the order if "the record does not support" those reasons. In addition, where the Court suggested in Columbia Medical Center that mandamus setting aside a new trial order was only appropriate in "extraordinary circumstances," that language, along with the attendant judicial restraint, had disappeared from the Court's jurisprudence by the time of Toyota Motor Sales.

In Bent, the Texas Supreme Court has further constrained the trial court's discretion. In United Scaffolding, the Court had previously held that the trial court's reasoning "'need not provide a detailed catalog of the evidence' as long as it provides a 'cogent and reasonably specific explanation' of its reasoning,'" In Bent, however, the Court set aside the trial court's order granting a new trial even though the trial court gave several reasons for its grant of a new trial. The reasons were "invalid" because the trial court failed to point to specific evidence undermining the verdict and because the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's finding that USAA had violated a motion in limine.

After Bent, it is clearer than ever that practitioners moving for a new trial should provide proposed orders with very specific reasoning for a new trial and with specific citations to the trial record. Texas appellate courts now have great authority to second-guess a trial judge's grant of a new trial, and a lawyer should be prepared to defend any new trial order on appeal.

If you or someone you know are or expect to be involved in civil litigation, contact one of the experienced attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend for a free consultation by calling 713-222-7211 or toll free at 1-800-870-9584.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Awards & Recognition

  • 2016-2017 Equal Access to Justice Champion

    The Equal Access to Justice Champions Program was started by the Houston Bar Association in 2006, to help ensure placement of Houston Volunteer Lawyers cases with pro bono volunteers. Originally, firms were tiered according to size, and firms within each tier committed to accept a certain number of pro bono cases from HVL each year for five years.

  • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers

    The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is an invitation-only organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state or region who meet stringent qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase objective and uniformly applied process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research.

  • Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Established in 1993, the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (which includes the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum) is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members.

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers America | Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz | 2017

    Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

  • Lead Counsel Rated

    In order to earn the Lead Counsel Rating, an attorney must not only demonstrate significant legal experience, but must also receive multiple peer recommendations advocating his or her ability. This is a key component in the screening process.

  • Texas Super Lawyers | Texas Monthly

    Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers in Texas via a patented multiphase selection process involving peer nomination, independent research and peer evaluation. The Texas lawyers who receive the highest point totals during this selection process are further recognized in Texas Super Lawyers Top Lists.

Get Your Free Case Review 713.587.9668

Let Us Help You Today! Request a Free Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Personal Injury Large Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs', taking a lead role in the plaintiffs' steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Plant Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs' steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Personal Injury Work Site Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm's client.

  • $12 Million Auto Accident 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $30 Million Personal Injury Burn Victims

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $30 million.

Our Record Of Success.

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

More Success Stories