IN RE: UNION INSURANCE COMPANY (2018)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By petition for writ of mandamus, Union Insurance Company seeks to set aside rulings issued by an assigned judge on grounds that its objection to the assignment was timely. See generally TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.053 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). We deny relief.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

When an assigned judge overrules a timely objection to his or her assignment, the objecting party is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698, 701 (Tex. 2001) (orig. proceeding). In such a case, the objecting party need not demonstrate that it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. Dunn v. Street, 938 S.W.2d 33, 34 (Tex. 1997) (orig. proceeding); Flores v. Banner, 932 S.W.2d 500, 501 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding); In re Flores, 53 S.W.3d 428, 430 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Union has not shown itself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See id. R. 52.8(a).

ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice