Evidence of ‘Prior Bad Acts’ Isn’t Enough: Striking Court-Appointed Professionals and Neutrals Requires Specific Proof of Bias
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca, 13-25-00640-CV, February 05, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The trial court abused its discretion by striking a contractually appointed neutral umpire and unilaterally appointing a replacement without any specific evidence of bias or partiality in the pending matter. Speculative “prior bad acts”—specifically a prior court order setting aside an unrelated award involving the same neutral—constitute insufficient proof of “evident partiality” required to disqualify a professional.
Relevance to Family Law
While this is an insurance appraisal dispute, the Thirteenth Court’s holding provides a powerful shield for Family Law practitioners dealing with court-appointed professionals. Whether you are seeking to protect a favorable Custody Evaluator, a Guardian ad Litem, or a court-appointed Receiver in a complex property division, this case establishes that a “prior bad act” in an unrelated case is not a “get out of jail free” card for your opponent to strike a neutral. It reinforces the high evidentiary bar required to prove bias and mandates strict adherence to the procedural mechanisms for appointment and removal of neutrals.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The litigation began as a storm damage claim under a homeowner’s insurance policy. After a disagreement regarding the valuation of loss, the insurer, Germania, invoked the policy’s appraisal provision. Following the contractual protocol, each party appointed an appraiser, but when those appraisers failed to agree on a valuation, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) appointed Rick Bowen as the umpire. The homeowner, Guerra, moved to strike Bowen, alleging he was biased and partial.
Guerra’s primary “evidence” was a prior order from a different district court in the same county that had set aside an appraisal award signed by Bowen in a separate, unrelated case. Guerra’s motion was unverified and lacked any affidavits or testimony regarding Bowen’s conduct in the current dispute. Despite this lack of specific evidence, and over Germania’s objection that any replacement must follow the AAA selection process outlined in the policy, the trial court struck Bowen and appointed its own preferred umpire.
Issues Decided
The Court of Appeals addressed two primary issues: first, whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking an appointed neutral based on speculative evidence of bias; and second, whether the trial court erred by bypassing the contractually mandated selection process to appoint its own replacement umpire.
Rules Applied
The court relied on the standard for mandamus relief, which requires a showing of an abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal. Specifically, the court looked to the “evident partiality” standards recently clarified by the Texas Supreme Court in Burke v. Houston PT BAC Office Ltd. P’ship, which applies arbitration-law impartiality principles to appraisal determinations. The court also applied the fundamental principle of contract law that trial courts must follow the specific procedures for neutral selection set forth in the underlying agreement (here, the insurance policy).
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the quality of the evidence presented. Guerra relied almost entirely on a “cross-over” argument: because a different judge had previously set aside an award involving Bowen, Bowen was per se biased. The Thirteenth Court rejected this, noting that the prior order did not actually state why the award was set aside—it could have been for procedural errors, scope issues, or causation disputes rather than actual bias.
The court noted that Guerra provided no evidence of Bowen’s conduct in this specific case. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the insurance policy provided a clear roadmap for what happens if an umpire is disqualified or fails to serve. By unilaterally picking its own umpire instead of referring the matter back to the AAA process, the trial court overstepped its authority and ignored the parties’ bargained-for selection method.
Holding
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by striking the umpire because the record contained no evidence of actual bias, partiality, or any other disqualifying conduct in the current proceeding. The mere existence of a prior adverse ruling in an unrelated case does not rise to the level of “evident partiality” required to disqualify a neutral.
The court further held that even if the umpire had been properly struck, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to follow the specific umpire-selection procedures mandated by the insurance policy. A trial court cannot substitute its own discretion for the parties’ contractually agreed-upon method of selecting a replacement neutral.
Practical Application
For family law litigators, this case is a vital tool when an opposing party attempts to “judge shop” for neutrals or strike an evaluator they simply don’t like.
If an opponent moves to strike a Custody Evaluator or a Receiver based on their “reputation” or “past rulings,” you must hold them to the Germania standard. Demand specific, admissible evidence—usually in the form of affidavits or testimony—showing bias in the current case. Remind the court that setting aside a professional’s work in Case A does not prove they are biased in Case B.
Additionally, if your Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) or a prior Order contains a specific mechanism for choosing a successor neutral (e.g., “the parties shall pick from a list of three provided by the local Bar Association”), use this case to prevent the judge from simply “picking a buddy” to fill the role.
Checklists
Defeating a Motion to Strike a Neutral
- Identify the Procedural Source: Determine if the appointment is governed by an MSA, a Standing Order, or the Texas Family Code.
- Object to Speculative Evidence: Move to strike any references to prior unrelated cases or “reputation” as hearsay or irrelevant under Germania.
- Enforce Verification Requirements: Ensure the motion to strike is supported by verified facts or affidavits, not just lawyer argument.
- Demand the Contractual Remedy: If the court insists on removal, argue that the replacement must be selected via the method previously agreed upon by the parties.
Establishing Bias (The Right Way)
- Focus on the Current Case: Gather evidence of undisclosed conflicts of interest specific to the current parties or counsel.
- Document Non-Disclosure: Check if the neutral failed to disclose facts that a reasonable person would consider relevant to their impartiality (per the AAA/ABA Code of Ethics).
- Avoid “Prior Bad Acts”: If using past conduct, you must have a transcript or a specific finding of fact from the previous court—a simple “Order Granting Motion” is legally insufficient.
Citation
In re Germania Farm Mutual Insurance Association, 13-25-00640-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 5, 2026, orig. proceeding).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In the “wild west” of family law litigation, parties often try to disqualify experts or neutrals to delay trial or remove a professional who seems to be leaning toward the other side. This civil ruling can be weaponized to stop “professional-stripping” tactics. If an opposing counsel tries to use a “scathing” post from a father’s rights group or a prior case where an evaluator’s recommendation wasn’t followed as a basis for disqualification, Germania provides the counter-punch. It mandates that unless they can prove the neutral has skin in this game, the court has no discretion to remove them. Furthermore, in property cases involving business valuations or receiverships, this case ensures that the court cannot ignore the appointment protocols often baked into company bylaws or partnership agreements.
~~f4ac589a-09e3-4cc8-883b-d0e381153636~~
Share this content:
