A Texas appeals court just set new ground rules for when insurers can jump into lawsuits and get claims against their adjusters thrown out - reshaping how property insurers defend themselves in court.
On July 25, 2025, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi–Edinburg issued a decision in the case of In re Trisura Insurance Company, Eagle 1 Adjusting LLC, and Thomas Walter Theophilus Maretzki. The case started with a homeowner’s storm damage claim and ended up clarifying a key Texas law that lets insurers take over legal responsibility from their agents and seek dismissal of those agents from lawsuits.
Here’s how it unfolded: Maria De La Luz Selvera, the homeowner, filed a property damage claim with Trisura Insurance Company after a storm hit her house. Trisura, through its third-party administrator Wellington Claim Service, LLC, assigned Eagle 1 Adjusting LLC and adjuster Thomas Walter Theophilus Maretzki to inspect the property and investigate the claim. Trisura decided that wind damage to Selvera’s roof and fence was covered, but denied coverage for wear and tear, interior damage from wind-driven rain, and other sources.
On September 8, 2023, Selvera’s counsel contacted Wellington for more information and later sent a presuit notice and demand letter to Maretzki. On March 14, 2024, Selvera filed suit against Eagle 1 and Maretzki, alleging they failed to properly investigate and adjust her claim and violated the Texas Insurance Code and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Trisura was not named as a defendant.
On April 5, 2024, Wellington informed Selvera’s counsel that Trisura elected to assume whatever liability its agents might have under Section 542A.006 of the Texas Insurance Code and invoked its right to appraisal under the policy. On January 27, 2025, Trisura filed a plea in intervention in the lawsuit, stating it issued the policy, hired Eagle 1 and Maretzki, found partial coverage, and issued payment minus deductible and depreciation. Trisura argued it was the only party liable under the policy and had elected to accept whatever liability its agents had under Section 542A.006.
That same day, Trisura filed a motion to dismiss Selvera’s claims against Eagle 1 and Maretzki with prejudice, based on its statutory election. Eagle 1 and Maretzki filed their own motion to dismiss on the same grounds.
On January 31, 2025, Selvera filed a third amended petition, dropping negligence claims and clarifying she was seeking only tort claims against Eagle 1 and Maretzki - not breach of contract or policy benefits. On February 7, 2025, Selvera filed an emergency motion to compel depositions and for sanctions. On February 18, 2025, she moved to strike Trisura’s plea in intervention, arguing Trisura could not intervene in pure tort claims against adjusters and could not rely on Section 542A.006 because it was not a party to the lawsuit.
On March 13, 2025, the trial court sided with Selvera, striking Trisura’s intervention and denying the motions to dismiss. Trisura, Eagle 1, and Maretzki then filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion to stay.
The appeals court conditionally granted mandamus relief in part, directing the trial court to vacate its order striking Trisura’s plea in intervention, deny Selvera’s motion to strike, vacate its order denying the motions to dismiss, and enter an order dismissing Eagle 1 and Maretzki from the lawsuit with prejudice. The court held that Trisura’s statutory election under Section 542A.006 was valid and required dismissal of the claims against Eagle 1 and Maretzki, even though Trisura was not originally a party to the lawsuit. The court reasoned that the claims against the adjusters were factually based on the insurance policy and Trisura’s claim determination, and that the law allows an insurer to make the election before or after a lawsuit is filed.
The court’s opinion referenced the appraisal clause invoked by Trisura but did not address the merits of the appraisal dispute in this decision.
For insurance professionals, this ruling is a clear reminder of the power of Section 542A.006. It gives insurers a straightforward path to assume liability for their agents and get those agents out of lawsuits - potentially saving time and money on litigation. The decision also underscores the importance of understanding policy language and being ready to act quickly when claims disputes escalate.
The July 25 decision is likely to influence how property insurers and adjusters handle litigation in Texas, making it a must-watch development for anyone in the business.
