grant mandamus relief and direct the 108th District Court to -withdraw its order denying Crawford’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss the Johnsons’ claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Our writ will issue only if the court fails to act in accordance with this opinion. 1 . 453 S.W.3d 450. The court of appeals concluded that Crawford is not entitled to mandamus relief because (1) "one could interpret” Crawford's five-month delay in filing its petition for writ of mandamus, shortly before trial, as an "effort to further hinder the timely adjudication of the Johnsons’ claims”; (2) even if the court could review the denial of Crawford's plea to the jurisdiction by mandamus, Crawford has not sh 2012 WL 5450826, at *1 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Nov. 8, 2012, no pet.) (mem.op.) (<HOLDING>); Carpenter v. Sw. Med. Examination Servs.,
holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims holding that because plaintiffs claims did not challenge the handling administration or payment of his flood claim or compliance with the act or the regulations the state law claims for breach of contract and tort are not preempted by the nfia holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the texas department of insurance because they concern the claims handling process holding that the dwc has exclusive jurisdiction over a claim for misrepresentation of an insurance policy when the misrepresentation occurs within the claimsettlement process also holding that the plaintiffs claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional dis tress arose out of the carriers investigation handling and settling of a workers compensation claim