The court conditionally granted the insurer’s writ of mandamus to compel an appraisal after the trial court denied the insurer’s motion to compel appraisal. In re Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8932 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2025).
The insureds, Jay Steinfeld and Barbara Winthrop (Steinfeld) ,hired Southhampton Group to build their home. Construction began in 2021. Southhampton Group obtained a builder’s risk policy from Zurich which named Steinfeld as an additional insured. Shortly before completion of the home, Sheet Metal Crafts, a subcontractor working on the home’s roof, caused a fire that substantially damaged the home.
Soughhampton notified Zurich of the claim and Zurich began investigating. Zurich issued a $500,000 advance payment to Steinfeld to begin remediation and necessary repairs. Throughout 2023 and 2024, the parties continued to inspect and investigate the damage to the home and continued to negotiate the loss amount.
Steinfeld provided Zurich with a reconstruction estimate of $4.8 million. Zurich reinspected the home in July 2024. In August, Steinfeld sent a notice and demand letter, seeking $4.5 million for early settlement and asked for mediation within 90 days.
Dissatisfied with Zurich’s response, Steinfeld sued for, among other things, failure to make prompt payment and bad faith. While the suit proceeded, mediation took place in May 2025. Zurich made a demand for appraisal eight days after the mediation concluded. Steinfeld opposed appraisal and Zurich filed a motion to compel appraisal and stay litigation. Steinfeld opposed the motion, arguing that Zurich waived its right to demand an appraisal because Zurich had not timely invoked the appraisal after an impasse. Steinfeld claimed the parties had reached an impasse in February 2024 because, among other things, Zurich only released $500,000 instead of the full undisputed amount. Based upon this impasse, Steinfeld argued Zurich failed to invoke appraisal within a reasonable time after the impasse.
The trial court denied Zurich’s motion to compel and the writ of mandamus followed.
The appellate court ruled the trial court abused its discretion in denying Zurich’s motion to compel. The policy provided either party could request an appraisal “within 60 days after our receipt of a signed, sworn proof of loss.” Here, Steinfeld never provided a proof of loss. Therefore, Zurich argued that the appraisal clause’s deadline was never triggered. The court agreed that Zurich’s request for appraisal in May 2025 was not precluded because the 60-day period to request appraisal was not triggered. Steinfeld did not point to any record evidence showing that Zurich intentionally waived its right to appraisal.
The recofd showed that from 2023 through 2024, the parties were communicating to resolve the claim, inspecting the property, communicating with building consultants, and attempting to negotiate the loss. Steinfeld did not establish the existence of a mutual understanding that neither party would negotiate further, and that an impasse occurred in February 2024.
The trial court was directed to (1) vacate its order denying Zurich’s motion and (2) order the parties to engage in the appraisal process,. The mandamus writ would only issue if the trial court failed to do so.