Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted and Memorandum 

Opinion filed February 6, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-01135-CV

____________

IN RE AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY AND AMERICAN NATIONAL 

LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 11CV0882 and 11CV0882-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 18, 2012, American National County Mutual Insurance 

Company and American National Lloyds Insurance Company (“Relators”) filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221. Relators ask 

this Court to order The Honorable Susan Criss, Judge of the 212th District Court of 

Galveston County, Texas, to set aside her order dated December 5, 2012, entered 
2

in trial court cause number 11CV0882,

1

styled Jennifer Avery, Individually and as 

Representative of the Estate of Brittiany Yuchnewicz v. Jonathan Hammond, Larry 

Hammond, and Terrie Hammond. Relators assert the trial court abused its 

discretion in denying their plea to the jurisdiction. On January 24, 2013, Relators 

filed in this court an emergency motion for stay of the proceedings in the trial 

court. On January 25, 2013, that motion was granted and we ordered the 

proceedings of the court below be stayed only as to the claims against Relators. A 

response to the petition was requested. As of this date, none has been filed. We 

conditionally grant the writ.

Jennifer Avery filed suit against the Hammonds for two incidents, the 

second of which resulted in the death of her daughter, Brittiany Yuchnewicz. 

Avery subsequently amended her petition to include a declaratory judgment action 

against Relators, the Hammonds’ insurers, to determine their obligation to 

indemnify the Hammonds. Relators filed a plea to the jurisdiction alleging the trial 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. After a hearing, the motion was denied.

Relators claim Avery lacks standing to initiate a declaratory judgment action 

against the defendants’ insurance company because no finding that defendants are 

liable to Avery has been made. Relators assert the issues are not “ripe.”

“A tort claimant has no direct claim against the tortfeasor’s liability insurer 

until the insured tortfeasor is adjudged liable to the tort claimant.” Farmers Ins. 

Exchange v. Rodriguez, 366 S.W.3d 216, 223 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.]

2012, pet. filed). Thus, until the Hammonds are adjudged liable to Avery, Avery 

has no direct claim against Relators. Although Avery is a third-party beneficiary 

of the Hammonds’ insurance policy, she cannot enforce the policy directly against 

 

1 After the plea to the jurisdiction was denied, the trial court entered an order of severance.
3

Relators until it has been established, by final judgment or agreement, that the 

Hammonds have a legal obligation to pay damages to her. Id. Because there is 

currently no obligation for the Hammonds to pay Avery damages, Avery cannot 

demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that her claims against Relators will soon 

ripen in the case under review, and these claims must be dismissed for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction. See id. There can be no justiciable controversy 

regarding the insurer’s duty to indemnify before a judgment has been rendered 

against an insured. Id.2 We therefore find the trial court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction as to Avery’s claims against Relators.

Subject matter jurisdiction is never presumed and cannot be waived. Tex. 

Ass’n of Business v. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993). A trial court 

has no discretion and must dismiss the case as a ministerial act when it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction. Qwest Microwave, Inc. v. Bedard, 756 S.W.2d 426 

(Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, orig. proceeding). Mandamus is available where the trial 

court’s action is void as a matter of law. Lewis v. Leftwich, 775 S.W.2d 848 

(Tex.App.—Dallas 1989, orig. proceeding). We therefore find Relators are 

entitled to mandamus relief. See also In re John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy 

Memorial Foundation, 315 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Tex. 2010) (mandamus relief was 

appropriate in case in which trial court lacked jurisdiction because plaintiff had no 

standing).

 

2 A declaratory judgment can be sought before liability is determined on the duty to defend. 

English v. BGP Intern, Inc. 174 S.W.3d 366, 371-72 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 2005,

no pet.). However, a declaratory judgment on the duty to indemnify is only justiciable “when the 

insurer has no duty to defend and the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise 

negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify.” Farmers Texas County 

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997) (emphasis in the original). This case is 

not within the exception.
4

Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus 

and direct the trial court to set aside her December 5, 2012 order, and enter 

an order granting the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the case. The writ will 

issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.