1

NO. 12-21-00204-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY 

COMPANY, 

APPELLANT

V.

GRAPELAND INDEPENDENT 

SCHOOL DISTRICT,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 349TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) attempts to appeal the trial court’s 

denial of its motion to dismiss Grapeland Independent School District’s (“Grapeland ISD”)

claims against it or stay the litigation in favor of arbitration. We dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Grapeland ISD sued Travelers and the Texas Rural Education Association Risk 

Management Cooperative (“TREA”) for damages related to a claim settlement. Travelers filed a

motion to dismiss Grapeland ISD’s claims against it or stay the litigation in favor of arbitration.

After hearing the parties’ arguments, the trial court did not rule on the motion but gave the 

parties time to research the issue and send the court case law. No order on the motion appears in 

the clerk’s record. 

Travelers filed a notice of appeal asserting that the trial court denied the motion in an 

email to the parties’ counsel. On December 6, 2021, this Court notified the parties that the 

Court’s jurisdiction was not shown because the record contained no appealable order, and the 
2

appeal would be dismissed unless jurisdiction was shown by December 16.1 Travelers timely

filed a response with the email attached. The parties subsequently submitted their briefs on the 

merits. 

APPEALABLE ORDER

In their briefs, both parties express doubt that the email is an appealable order. We 

conclude it is not. 

An appeal may be taken from an order refusing a stay of a proceeding in which an issue 

is referable to arbitration. 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 16(a)(1)(A). A decision is rendered when it is 

announced orally in open court or by memorandum filed with the clerk. Schaeffer Homes, Inc. 

v. Esterak, 792 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1990, no writ). To be effective, all orders 

and rulings must be made on the record either in writing or in open court transcribed by the court

reporter. In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd., 209 S.W.3d 311, 315 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). Letters to counsel are not the kind of documents that constitute a 

judgment, decision, or order from which an appeal may be taken. Goff v. Tuchscherer, 627 

S.W.2d 397, 398-99 (Tex. 1982). 

The record in this case does not show that an appealable order was rendered. The 

reporter’s record shows that the trial court did not rule on the motion at the time of the hearing. 

The email relied on by Travelers does not appear in the clerk’s record. Because the record does 

not show that a decision on Travelers’s motion was announced orally in open court or by 

memorandum filed with the clerk, there is no appealable order for us to review. See Goff, 627 

S.W.2d at 398-99; Bill Heard Chevrolet, 209 S.W.3d at 315; Schaeffer Homes, 792 S.W.2d at

569. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over Travelers’s appeal. 

DISPOSITION

Having found no appealable order in the record, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered June 30, 2022.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a) (appellate court may dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction on its own 

initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties).
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 30, 2022

NO. 12-21-00204-CV

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Appellant

V.

GRAPELAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellee

Appeal from the 349th District Court

of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 20-0060)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be 

dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.