1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-15-00265-CV

_________________

IN RE TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

_________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

1A District Court of Jasper County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 34,224

_________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, we conditionally grant mandamus relief. Texas 

Mutual Insurance Company (“Texas Mutual”) denied Larry Smith’s claim for 

workers’ compensation benefits for an on-the-job injury allegedly sustained on 

June 23, 2014, because the workers’ compensation policy allegedly expired 

approximately three weeks earlier. Smith’s employer, Jimmy E. Ellis, d/b/a Jimmy 

Ellis Construction (“Ellis”) sued Texas Mutual and asked the trial court to order 

Texas Mutual to provide workers’ compensation benefits to Smith and reimburse 

Ellis for medical expenses that Ellis claims to have incurred in connection with 
2

Smith’s injury. Texas Mutual filed a challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction, 

arguing in part that Ellis had not presented a claim to the Texas Department of 

Insurance Division of Workers’ Compensation (the “Division”). Ellis responded 

and argued that the trial court had jurisdiction over the claim because the claim 

was based on a theory of equitable estoppel. The trial court denied Texas Mutual’s

motion to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

Ellis argues that the trial court has jurisdiction to determine whether Texas 

Mutual waived its right of cancellation pursuant to this Court’s decision in 

Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas v. Mason. See generally 

460 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1970, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The

current Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) “with its definitions, detailed 

procedures, and dispute resolution process demonstrating legislative intent for 

there to be no alternative remedies” was not in effect when Mason was decided. 

See Texas Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430, 444 (Tex. 2012). The Act 

now provides an administrative dispute resolution process for claims for workers’ 

compensation benefits, including a claim for reimbursement by a subclaimant such 

as Ellis. Id.; see also Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 409.009 (West 2015). 

The Division has exclusive jurisdiction “for claims arising out of a carrier’s 

investigation, handling, or settling of a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.” 
3

In re Crawford & Co., 458 S.W.3d 920, 925-26 (Tex. 2015). Ellis’s claims fall 

within the Division’s exclusive jurisdiction and “the Act provides the sole process 

and remedies for those claims.” Id. at 928. According to the record before us, Ellis 

has not pursued the administrative process that is a prerequisite for judicial review.

Id.; see also Tex. Labor Code §§ 410.252, 410.302 (West 2015). The trial court 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction; therefore, it was an abuse of discretion for the 

trial court to deny the motion to dismiss. Texas Mutual is entitled to mandamus 

relief. Crawford & Co., 458 S.W.3d at 928. 

We conditionally grant mandamus relief and direct the trial court to vacate 

its order of February 5, 2015, and to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with 

this opinion.

PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 17, 2015

Opinion Delivered August 13, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.