Party Notice: Bruk Adera vs. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

On January 27, 2023 a Party Notice was filed involving a dispute between Adera, Bruk, and Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Company, for Other Civil in the District Court of Fort Bend County.

Preview
NO. 23--300730

BRUK ADERA IN THE DISTRICT COURT

VS. 400TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ALLSTATE VEHICLE & PROPERTY
INSURANCE COMPANY FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTONDIVISION

BRUK ADERA CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23--816

VS. JURY DEMANDED

ALLSTATE VEHICLE & PROPERTY NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION
INSURANCE COMPANY UNDER 28 U.S.C.§ 1441(a

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

Please take notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 1446, Allstate Vehicle

and Property Insurance Company, Defendant herein removes to this Court the state court

action pending in the 400 Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas invoking

this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, on the grounds explained below.

ASIS FOR EMOVAL

1 On January 27 Plaintiff filed suit in Fort Bend County against the

Defendant. The suit was assigned to the 400th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County,

Texas, styled Cause No. 23-DCV-300730 Bruk Adera v. Allstate Vehicle and Property
Insurance Company. Defendant Allstate was served/received notice of this suit on

February s required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), Allstate files this notice of

removal within thirty (30) days following receipt by Defendant of the initial pleadings.

Removal of this action is proper, because this Court has original diversity

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and the action is one that may be removed by

Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(3); specifically, this is a civil action wherein

the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs,

and the Defendant is diverse in citizenship fromthe Plaintiff.

There is complete diversity among the parties as required by 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a). Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas. Allstate is a corporation incorporated under the

laws of the State of Illinois, having its principalplace of business now and at the time this

action was commenced at Northbrook, Cook County, in the State of Illinois. Allstate is

now, and was at the time this action was commenced, a citizen of the State of Illinois.

The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 as required by 28 U.S.C. §

1332 (a). Plaintiff’s Original Petition recites that they are seeking actual damages, statutory

damages, and attorney’s fees for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and

fair dealing, fraud, violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Chapter 541 and 542

of the Texas Insurance Code, negligence, and gross negligence relating to the Defendant’s

alleged failure to properly adjust the claim for Plaintiffs alleged property damage. Further,

Plaintiff's Petition states Plaintiff seeking of $250,000.00 or less, excluding interest

statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney fees and costs, for their damages.

Thus, Plaintiffs Petition shows on its face, that Plaintiff's claims are in excess of

SeePlaintiff’s Pe tition incorporated herein under Exhibit “A”.
The Clerk’s full record in this case is attached as Exhibit “A”. A list of all

Counsel of Record is attached as Exhibit “ ”. The Civil Cover Sheet is attached as Exhibit

Venue is proper in this district because the district and division embrace the

place where the removal action has been pending.

Defendant will promptly provide written notice of the filing of this Notice

of Removal to all parties and to the clerk of the 400 Judicial District Court of Fort Bend

County, Texas.

Defendant respectfully requests that the state court action be removed and

placed on this Court’s docket for further proceedings. Defendant further requests any

additional reliefto which it may be justly entitled.

DATE: March Respectfully submitted,

HOPE & CAUSEY, P. C.

/s/ Wesley R. Ward
Wesley R. Ward
State Bar No. 24008235
P. O. Box 3188
Conroe, Texas 77305 3188
(936) 441 Metro
(936) 441 Facsimile
hcdocket@hope causey.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered to all interested parties on
March , 2023, viae filing addressed to:

Joe Gibson
Gibson Legal Group, PLLC
21st StE
Houston, Texas 77008
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

/s/ Wesley R. Ward
Wesley R. Ward
EXHIBIT
a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

BRUK ADERA CIVIL ACTION NO.

VS. JURY DEMANDED

ALLSTATE VEHICLE & PROPERTY NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION
INSURANCE COMPANY UNDER 28 U.S.C.§ 1441(a

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION

Case Summary in the state court action

Plaintiff's Original Petition filed on January 27, 2021

Issued Citation for Allstate filed January 31, 2023

Allstate’s Original Answer to Plaintiffs Original Petition filed on March 1, 2023

Filed
112712023 11:04 AM
Beverley McGrew Walker
‘ District Clerk
Fort Bend County, Texas
Salena Jasso

CAUSENO, 23-DCV-300730
BRUK ADERA IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
VS. FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND Fort Bend County - 400th Judicial District Court
PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE AND JURY OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, BRUK ADERA (herein “Plaintiff’), and files this Plaintiff's Original

Petition complaining of Defendant ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE

COMPANY, (herein or “Defendant”), and for cause of action shows the Court the following:

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN& RULE 47(c) STATEMENT

1d Discovery in this matter is governed by T.R.C.P. Rule 169, the Expedited Actions

Process and T.R.C.P. Rule 190.2. The expedited actions process applies to a suit in which all

claimants, other than counter-claimants, affirmatively plead that they seek only monetary relief

aggregating $250,000 or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and

attorney's fees and costs.

1.2. Plaintiff affirmatively pleads that Plaintiff seeks only monetary relief aggregating

$250,000 or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney's

fees and costs. Plaintiff does not anticipate same will be necessary, however Plaintiff reserves the

right to remove this suit from the Expedited Actions Process and modify the discovery control plan

to Level 2 or 3 upon a motion showing good cause.

eS
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 1
1.3. Plaintiff has suffered losses and damages in a sum within the jurisdictional limits

of the Court and for which this lawsuit is brought. Plaintiff seeks only monetary relief of $250,000

or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney's fees and

costs and a demand for judgment for all the other relief to which the Plaintiff is deemed entitled.

Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(1).
U1. PARTIES

21 Plaintiff, BRUK ADERA, is an individual who resides in FORT BEND County,

Texas.

2.2 Defendant ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY

(“Defendant”) is a Foreign insurance company engaged in the business of insurance in the State

of Texas. This Defendant may be served with process by certified mail, return receipt

requested, by serving its Registered Agent, CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, 1999 BRYAN

ST STE 900, DALLAS, TEXAS 75201-3136

UI. JURISDICTION

3.1 This Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action because the amount in

controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of the Court as verified by Plaintiff Rule 47(c)

statement, supra.

3.2 This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because this Defendant is an insurance

company which has purposefully availed itself to the jurisdiction of the State of Texas by engaging

in the business of insurance in the State of Texas, and Plaintiff’s causes of action arise out of this

Defendant’s business activities in the State of Texas.

re
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 2
IV. VENUE

41 Venue is proper in FORT BEND County, Texas, because the insured property,

subject to this suit, is situated in FORT BEND County, Texas. TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM. CODE

§15.032.
V.FACTS

5.1. Plaintiff purchased a policy from Defendant, insuring Plaintiff's property against

certain losses. The Policy number was 000416646459 (hereinafter referred to as “the Policy”)

5.2 Plaintiff maintains an insurable interest in the insured property, which is located at

4223 Shady River, Missouri City, Texas 77459, (hereinafter referred to as “the Property”).

5.3. On or about 03/22/2022, The Property sustained serious structural damage as a

result of a covered loss under The Policy (the “Covered Loss Event”). Specifically, the Property

was damaged as a result of a severe storm (wind/hail). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff made a claim

and demand for payment on Defendant for damages to the Property and other damages covered by

the terms of the Policy (the “Claim”). The subject claim number is 0673795570.

5.4 Subsequent to Plaintiff making the Claim, Defendant assigned a local adjuster, to

adjust the claim (“The Adjuster”). The adjuster failed to adequately adjust Plaintiff's claim. The

adjuster performed only a cursory inspection of Plaintiff's reported damages and failed to adjust

for proper construction materials and methods. The adjuster made incorrect coverage

determinations and misrepresented the scope of Plaintiff's damages to Plaintiff, thereby vastly

underpaying Plaintiff's legitimate claim for covered losses.

5.5 After having the damages reevaluated by a qualified contractor, Plaintiff sent

Defendant a demand for payment of the claim in compliance with Tex. Ins. Code Sec. 542A.003.

In response, Defendant failed to tender adequate payment to which Plaintiff is entitled and this

eee
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 3
ob

matter is now ripe for litigation. More specifically, Defendant responded and now states there is

indeed damage to the property, but the damages are old and/or were created by a prior storm when

Plaintiff was insured by a different company. Defendant was offered the opportunity to reinspect

the property and chose not to.

5.6 Plaintiff requested that Defendant cover the cost of repairs to the Property pursuant

to the Policy, including but not limited to, repair and/or replacement of the damaged structures and

contents located on or around the exterior of the property as well as those within the interior.

5.7 Defendant has wrongfully delayed and denied payment of the balance due to

Plaintiff for the Claim. Based upon information and belief, and as a basis for this delay and denial,

Defendant has relied upon an inadequate and under-scoped adjustment which claims that the cost

of repair for damages to Plaintiff's property were substantially less than the actual cost of repairs.

5.8 Pleading in the alternative, Plaintiffs actual covered damage and losses to the

Property as a result of the Covered Loss Event, including the costs of temporary repairs and

alternative living expenses, have caused other consequential damages to be sustained by Plaintiff

herein. Defendant is liable for these consequential damages due to its failure to promptly and

sufficiently pay the claim.

5.9 Pleading in the alternative and based upon information and belief, the Adjuster was

compensated for each claim the Adjuster adjusted on behalf of Defendant and/or other combination

of compensation tied to the quantity of claims adjusted. So long as the Adjuster adjusted claims

favorably for Defendant, the Adjuster would continue receiving additional assignments, thereby

creating a pecuniary interest for the Adjuster to minimize the scope and pricing of damages

identified during a property inspection.

5.10. Pleading further and in the alternative if necessary, the Adjuster was negligent,

rr S
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 4
reckless, and/or acted intentionally knowingly, fraudulently, and with malice in violating

Defendant’s written policies as they relate to claims handling practices by failing to fully

investigate and document all damage to the Property and by failing to fully investigate and evaluate

the Plaintiff's insured losses based upon local replacement and/or repair costs for each item of

damage. Alternatively, Defendant’s own written claims handling policies were designed to defraud

policyholders such as Plaintiff.

5.11. The Adjuster, on behalf of Defendant, intentionally, knowingly and fraudulently,

with malice, engaged in the following specified acts and practices, among others stated herein, in

violation of and in breach of the adjuster’s moral, ethical and legal duties to Plaintiffas a licensed

claims adjuster. Such acts and omissions were producing and proximate causes of the damages

and losses sustained herein by Plaintiff resulting in the denial and/or underpayment of Plaintiff's

claim; to wit:

a) The Adjuster failed to properly investigate and inspect the Property during repair

of the property which would have revealed other damages arising out of the

Covered Loss Event;

b) The Adjuster failed to and/or refused to properly interview Plaintiff to ascertain

other damages that were not readily apparent or would not be readily apparent to

an individual unfamiliar with the property’s pre-loss condition;

°) The Adjuster refused to and did not inspect for hidden or latent damage resulting

to Plaintiffs Property that is customarily found to exist in Property that has

undergone the type of damage of the severity that Plaintiff's Property sustained;

4d) The Adjuster failed and refused to include the usual and customary charges for

costs of materials, supplies, labor and contractor’s overhead and profit charged by

Plaintiff's Original Petition Page
local contractors for the repair, replacement and restoration of the Plaintiff's

Property due to the Covered Loss Event damage;

¢) The Adjuster performed only a cursory inspection of the exterior and interior of the

insured Property, spending insufficient time at the Property to properly assess all

items of damage; and failed to properly assess, estimate and include covered

damage to the property in the report and adjustment of loss to Defendant for the

damages resulting from the Covered Loss Event and/or note other damages existing

to the Property at the time of inspection such as plumbing, appliances, ceilings and

walls that sustained damage as a result of the Covered Loss Event;

Pleading in the alternative, the Adjuster, during the investigation of the Plaintiff's

claim, made coverage decisions, which the Adjuster was not qualified and/or

authorized to perform, by failing to include all damages sustained to the Property,

thus submitting an inaccurate and false report of Plaintiff's Covered Loss Event

claim and its losses to Defendant;

8) Defendant fraudulently represented to Plaintiff verbally and by conduct, insisted

that the majority of the damages to the Property were not related to the Covered

Loss Event made basis of this suit; and that most, if not all, of the covered damages

found to exist upon observation of Plaintiff property, were not covered by the

Policy, but were due to normal wear and tear or the result of other causes, when in

fact such damage was related and should have been included in the Adjuster‘s

reports to Defendant. Based upon information and belief, Defendant’s acts and

omissions as they pertain to the mishandling of Plaintiff's claim were largely

dependent and proximately caused by its reliance on the report/adjustment

I
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 6
produced by the Adjuster, whom it knew, or reasonably should have known, was

biased and hence, under-scoped the damages.

5.12. Based upon information and belief, Defendant failed to thoroughly review the

fraudulent and inaccurate assessment of the Claim as produced by the Adjuster and ultimately

approved the Adjuster’s inaccurate reports of the damages to the Property.

5.13. The mishandling of Plaintiff's claim has also caused a delay and hardship in the

ability to fully repair the Property, which has resulted in additional damages in terms of the loss

of use of the Plaintiffs Property and mental anguish as a result thereof. In spite of Plaintiff's good

faith efforts and/or intent to mitigate damages as required under the terms of the policy,

Defendant’s bad faith and unlawful claims adjusting practices has left Plaintiff in a vulnerable

financial state without adequate resources to repair and/or replace damaged structures, thereby

causing additional damages.

5.14 In the alternative, without waiving the foregoing, and based upon information and

belief, Defendant instructed the Adjuster to follow their claims processing guidelines of in

connection with the claims handling process for Plaintiff's claim. Defendant was responsible for

training, overseeing, and supervising its claim representatives and adjusters handling claims like

Plaintiff's claim. Defendant was responsible for — and had a legal duty — to hire and retain

competent, qualified and ethical licensed adjusters and claims representatives who would deal

fairly, honestly and in good faith with its policy holders in the practice of insurance claims

handling. Defendant breached such duties in connection with the Claim by failing to properly

train, direct and oversee the claims handling practices employed by the Adjuster. Alternatively,

Defendant — either directly or through an anti-policyholder culture — purposefully instructed the

Adjuster to ignore good faith claims handling practices contained in its written training materials

rr
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 7
and deliberately instructed the Adjuster to actively attempt to deny, underpay, underscope, and

minimize damages claimed by policyholders such as Plaintiff.

5.15 At all times material herein, Defendant had a non-delegable contractual legal duty

to timely, fairly and in good faith investigate, process, adjust, timely pay, and re-adjust claims for

all covered losses sustained by its policyholders, such as Plaintiff. Defendant represented that it

would do so in advertising mediums throughout the State of Texas and specifically in writing to

its policyholders as an inducement for them to purchase and continue to renew homeowners and

property insurance policies. Due to a lack of knowledge and understanding of the insurance claims

handling process, knowledge of construction costs and insurance policy coverage issues relating

to property losses, Plaintiff relied on such misrepresentations to Plaintiff's detriment, and hence

(1.) purchased the Policy from Defendant, and (2.) accepted the estimate of damages from

Defendant Adjuster which, unknown to Plaintiff, included denial and underpayment of covered

losses and damages sustained. Defendant made such representations knowing they were false and

with the intent that Plaintiff rely on such representations.

5.16. Upon information and belief, Defendant, having breached its legal duty to timely,

fairly and in good faith investigate, process, adjust and pay for all covered losses sustained by

Plaintiff herein by assigning the Adjuster to adjust and handle Plaintiffs claim, is responsible for

the acts of omission and commission set forth herein and above in connection with the Adjuster’s

investigation and claims handling practices employed to deny and/or underpay the covered losses

and damages sustained by Plaintiff as set forth herein.

5.17 Based upon information and belief, Defendant distributed training, educational, and

instructional materials to its field claim representatives and adjusters such as the Adjuster and held

meetings and issued directives to the field instructing how Defendant wanted claims like Plaintiff's

rr
Plaintiffs Original Petition Page 8
to be handled. Defendant, through directives to its adjusters like the Adjuster, tasked those

adjusters assigned to Plaintiffs claim with handling such losses in line with Defendant’s policy

and procedures. Defendant communicated and disseminated claims handling practices and

methodologies to its field adjusters such as Defendant Adjuster of 1) “Quantity over Quality”, 2)

Minimization of damage estimates, 3) Under-valuation of reported replacement and/or repair

estimates, and 4) Omission of probable covered damages in reports of losses to the Property. These

policies served to fuel and motivate the Adjuster’s individual pre-disposition of bias in favor of

insurance companies and prejudice towards claimants and the resulting losses sustained by

Plaintiff as set forth herein.

5.18 Defendant failed to perform its contractual duties to adequately compensate

Plaintiff under the terms of the Policy. Specifically, it refused to pay the full proceeds of the

Policy, although due demand was made for proceeds to be paid in an amount sufficient to cover

the damaged property, and all conditions precedent to recovery upon the Policy had been carried

out and accomplished by Plaintiff. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a breach of the insurance

contract between Defendant and Plaintiff.

5.19 From and after the time Plaintiff's claim was presented to Defendant, the liability

of Defendant to pay the full claim in accordance with the terms of the Policy was reasonably clear.

However, Defendant has refused to pay Plaintiff in full, despite there being no basis whatsoever

on which a reasonable insurance company would have relied to deny the full payment.

Defendant’s conduct constitutes a breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing.

5.20 Pleading in the alternative, Defendant knowingly or recklessly made false

representations, as described above, as to material facts and/or knowingly concealed all or part of

material information from Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 9
5.21 As a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff was forced to

retain the professional services of the attorneys who are representing Plaintiff with respect to these

causes of action. Said professional services have caused Plaintiff to incur attorney’s fees which are

recoverable as a matter of law due to the unlawful conduct committed by Defendant.

§.22 Based upon information and belief, Plaintiff's experience is not an isolated case.

The acts and omissions of Defendant committed in this case, or similar acts and omissions, occur

with such frequency that they constitute a general business practice of Defendant with regard to

the handling of these types of claims. Defendant’s entire process is unfairly designed to reach

favorable outcomes for the company at the expense of the policyholders.

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT — NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE
TEXAS INSURANCE CODE

6.1 Plaintiff repleads all of the material allegations above set forth in Paragraphs 1.1-

5.22 and incorporate the same herein by this reference as if here set forth in full.

6.2 Defendant misrepresented to Plaintiff that the damage to the Property was not

covered under the Policy, even though the damage was caused by a covered occurrence.

Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement

Practices. TEX. INS. CODE §§541.060(a)(1).

6.3 Defendant failed to make an attempt to settle Plaintiff's claim in a fair manner,

although it was aware of its liability to Plaintiff under the Policy. Defendant’s conduct constitutes

a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices. TEX. INS. CODE

§541.060(a)(2)(A).
6.4 Defendant failed to explain to Plaintiff the reasons for an inadequate settlement.

Furthermore, Defendant did not communicate that any future settlements of payments would be

forthcoming to pay for the entire losses covered under the Policy, nor did it provide any

Plaintiffs Original Petition Page 10
explanation for the failure to adequately settle Plaintiffs claim. Defendant’s conduct is a violation

of the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices, TEX. INS. CODE §541.060(a)(3).

6.5 Defendant failed to affirm or deny coverage of Plaintiff’s claim within a reasonable

time. Specifically, Plaintiff did not receive timely indication of acceptance or rejection, regarding

the full and entire claim, in writing from Defendant. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation

of the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices. TEX. INS. CODE §541.060(a)(4).

6.6 Defendant refused to fully compensate Plaintiff, under the terms of the Policy, even

though Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a

violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices. TEX. INS. CODE

§541.060(a)(7).
6.7 Defendant failed to meet its obligations under the Texas Insurance Code regarding

timely acknowledging Plaintiff's claim, beginning an investigation of Plaintiff's claim, and

requesting all information reasonably necessary to investigate Plaintiffs claim, within the

statutorily mandated time of receiving notice of Plaintiffs claim. Defendant’s conduct constitutes

a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. TEX. INS. CODE §542.055.

6.8 Defendant failed to accept or deny Plaintiff's full and entire claim within the

statutorily mandated time of receiving all necessary information. Defendant’s conduct constitutes

a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. TEX. INS. CODE §542.056.

6.9 Defendant failed to meet its obligations under the Texas Insurance Code regarding

payment of claim without delay. Specifically, it has delayed full payment of Plaintiff's claim

longer than allowed and, to date Plaintiff has not received full payment for the claim. Defendant’s

conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. TEX.

INS. CODE §542.058.

rr
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 11
VII. CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT ~ FRAUD

71 Plaintiff repleads all of the material allegations above set forth in Paragraphs 1.1-

6.9 and incorporate the same herein by this reference as if here set forth in full.

72 Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for common law fraud.

73 Defendant represented in its policy that damages resulting from a covered loss such

as this claim would be insured. Plaintiff, to Plaintiff's detriment, purchased Defendant’s policy in

exchange for a benefit Defendant knew the Plaintiff would not receive. Plaintiff further relied to

Plaintiff's detriment upon the false, fraudulent, and deceptive acts and practices employed by

Defendant, in performing an inspection, investigation and evaluation of Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff

was not knowledgeable in the manner and scope required to investigate such a loss, nor

knowledgeable in insurance loss coverage issues and were not aware of the deceptive, fraudulent

practices which required that they hire an independent adjuster after the delays and failure to

provide the promises adjusting services were discovered. Defendant, based upon its experience,

special knowledge of structural loss issues resulting from covered losses such as this one and

insurance coverage issues were able to deceive Plaintiff into believing that the property damage

loss would be competently investigated by a qualified, ethical and experienced adjuster and that

the loss would be properly, fairly and in good faith evaluated and assessed and the claim paid.

74 Plaintiff was unaware that all such representations and conduct relating to the

investigation and handling of the claim were performed with the intent and purpose to defraud,

take advantage of and deny and/or undervalue the property losses sustained by Plaintiff. Plaintiff

was unaware that all such representations and conduct relating to the investigation and handling

of the claim were performed with the intent and purpose to defraud, take advantage of and deny

and/or undervalue the property losses sustained by Plaintiff. Plaintiff relied to its detriment on

nn
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 12
such actions and representations resulting in the losses and damages complained of herein. Plaintiff

sought representation of the undersigned counsel in an attempt to expedite the resolution of this

claim dispute without unnecessary litigation. However, Defendant has recalcitrantly failed to pay

funds which are owed on this claim in which Defendant’s liability to pay is clear. This undue

expense and delay was solely incurred due to the acts of Defendant in failing to perform the duties

what it was required to perform Texas Insurance Code and the contract of insurance

75 The conduct of Defendant has prolonged Plaintiff's hardship of restoring the

damaged home and increased the expense of relocation and alternative living arrangements.

Defendant knew at the time the misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct occurred (as described

above) that the representations contained in the estimate of loss were untrue and communicated

those representations to Plaintiff which were false. Each and every one of the representations and

deceptive acts and practices, as described above, and those stated in this paragraph, concerned

representations and falsehoods relating to material facts for the reason that absent such

representations, Plaintiff would not have acted as Plaintiff did, and which Defendant knew were

false or made recklessly without any knowledge of their truth as a positive assertion.

76 Defendant made statements and performed actions with the intention to manipulate

Plaintiff to act as Plaintiff did, thereby causing Plaintiff to suffer injury and constituting common

law fraud.

Vill. CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT — CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
FRAUD

8.1 Plaintiff repleads all of the material allegations above set forth in Paragraphs 1.1-

7.6 and incorporate the same herein by this reference as if here set forth in full.

8.2 Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for conspiracy to commit fraud. Defendant, through

its relationships with adjusters, and/or third party claims adjusting firms, was a member of a

Plaintiffs Original Petition Page 13
combination of two or more persons whose object was to accomplish an unlawful purpose or a

lawful purpose by unlawful means. In reaching a meeting of the minds regarding the course of

action to be taken against Plaintiff, Defendant committed an unlawful, overt act to further the

object or course of action. Plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result. Plaintiff does not seek

damages from conspirators other than Defendant, but reserves the right to amend this pleading.

1X. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT — BREACH OF CONTRACT/DUTY
OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

9.1 Plaintiff replead all of the material allegations above set forth in Paragraphs 1 .1-8.2

and incorporate the same herein by this reference as if here set forth in full.

9.2 Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for intentional breach of contract, and intentional

breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing.

9.3 Defendant’s conduct constitutes a breach of the insurance contract made between

Defendant and Plaintiff.

9.4 Defendant’s failure and/or refusal, as described above, to pay the adequate and just

compensation as it is obligated to do under the terms of the Policy in question, and under the laws

of the State of Texas, constitutes a breach of Defendant’s insurance contract with Plaintiff.

9.5 Defendant’s failure, as described above, to adequately and reasonably investigate

and evaluate Plaintiff’s claim, although, at that time, Defendant knew or should have known by

the exercise of reasonable diligence that its liability was reasonably clear, constitutes a breach of

the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

X. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT — RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF
AGENTS AND RATIFICATION OF ACTS

10.1 The Adjuster, whose conduct is referenced herein and above, was acting as an agent

of Defendant at all material times made the basis of Plaintiffs Claims and such acts of commission

ee
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 14
and omission in the handling of Plaintiff's claim, including inspections, adjustments, and aiding

in the adjustment of the loss were committed for or on behalf of Defendant, the insurer.

TEX.INS.CODE §4001.051.

10.2 Separately, and/or in the alternative, as referenced and described above, Defendant

ratified the actions and conduct of Defendant Adjuster including the manner in which they

discharged or failed to properly discharge their duties under the common law and applicable

statutory laws and regulations.

XI. KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT

11 Each of the acts described above, together and singularly, was done “knowingly,”

and “intentionally” as those terms are used in the Texas Insurance Code, and was a producing

cause of Plaintiffs damages described herein.

XII. DAMAGES

12.1 Plaintiff would show that all of the aforementioned acts, taken together or

singularly, constitute the producing causes of the damages sustained by Plaintiff.

12.2 As previously stated, the damages caused by the Covered Loss Event were not fully

paid by Defendant and have not been properly addressed in the time since the covered loss event,

causing further damages to Plaintiff financially in terms of paying for covered losses when such

obligation was that of Defendant, which has caused undue hardship and burden to Plaintiff. These

damages are a direct result of Defendant’s mishandling of Plaintiff's claim in violation of the laws

set forth above.

12.3 For breach of contract, Plaintiff is entitled to regain the benefit of Plaintiff's

bargain, which is the amount of Plaintiffs claim losses and expenses, together with attorney’s

fees.

ee
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 15
12.4 For noncompliance with the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices,

Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, which include the loss of the benefits that should have been

paid pursuant to the policy, mental anguish, court costs, and attorney’s fees. For knowing conduct

of the acts described above, Plaintiff asks for three times Plaintiff's actual damages. TEX. INS.

CODE §541.152.

12.5 For noncompliance with the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims,

Plaintiff is entitled to the amount of Plaintiffs claim, as well as ten percent (10%) interest per

annum on the amount of such claim as damages, together with attorney’s fees. TEX. INS. CODE

§542.060.
12.6 For breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff is

entitled to compensatory damages, including all forms of loss resulting from Defendant’s breach

of duty, such as additional costs, economic hardship, losses due to nonpayment of the amount the

insurer owed, exemplary damages, and damages for emotional distress.

12.7 For fraud, Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages and exemplary damages

for knowingly fraudulent and malicious representations, along with attomey’s fees, interest, and

court costs.

12.8 For the prosecution and collection of this claim, Plaintiff has been compelled to

engage the services of the attorney whose name is subscribed to this pleading. Therefore, Plaintiff

is entitled to recover a sum for the reasonable and necessary services of Plaintiffs attorney in the

preparation and trial of this action, including any appeals to the Court of Appeals and/or the

Supreme Court of Texas.

XIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

13.1 Plaintiff reserves the right to prove the amount of damages at trial. Plaintiff reserves

rr
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 16
the right to amend this petition to add additional counts upon further discovery as the investigation

continues.

XIV. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

14.1 Pursuant to Rule 54 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, all conditions precedent

to Plaintiff's right to recover herein have been performed or have occurred.

XV. JURY DEMAND

15.1 Plaintiff hereby requests that all causes of action alleged herein be tried before a

jury consisting of citizens residing in FORT BEND County, Texas. Plaintiff will tender the

appropriate jury fee prior to the deadline set forth in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that upon trial hereof, said

Plaintiff have and recover such sums as would reasonably and justly compensate Plaintiff in

accordance with the rules of law and procedure, as to actual damages, treble damages under the

Texas Insurance Code, and all punitive and exemplary damages as may be found. In addition,

Plaintiff requests the award of attorney’s fees for the trial and any appeal of this case, for all costs

of Court on Plaintiff's behalf expended, for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed

by law, and for any other and further relief, either at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may show

Plaintiff is entitled to.

rr
Plaintiffs Original Petition Page 17
Respectfully submitted,

GIBSON LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
Joe Gibson
SBN: 24007236
733 W 21" StE
Houston, Texas 77008
Phone: (832) 878-3140
Email: joe@jgibson-law.com

By: 4s/ Joe Gibson
JOE GIBSON

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

V—X—X—_———
EE sw ws _—
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 18
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Joe Gibson on behalf of Joe Gibson
Bar No. 24007236
joe@jgibson-law.com
Envelope ID: 72211229
Status as of 1/27/2023 11:54 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status

Joe Gibson joe@jgibson-law.com | 1/27/2023 11:04:19 AM | SENT

Hing aA * eo fae x ay
4 mm ne Sek ad
oy Sete fa
Rey a
ay2
ev Lg +e

SERVICE:FEE:COLLECTED
BY DISTRICT CLERK
THE STATE OF TEXAS

CITATION

TO: ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY
REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1999 BRYAN ST STE 900
DALLAS TX 75201-3136

NOTICE:

You have been sued. You may-employ'an attorney. w=If you or your‘attorney.do not file a written answer with the
clerk who issued this citati by 10:00 a.mFon, Monday ‘next following the expira n,of twenty days after you were
served this citation an INTIEF'S ORIGINAL PETITION filed n’JANUARY 023, a default judgment may
be taken against you’ ddi tion, to filing ‘a _written answer, withthe! ‘clerk, youamay, ‘Be, required to make initial
disclosures to the other p: s of this Suit-eTHeSe" disclosures" generally must be made no'later than 30 days after
you file your answer'with the ‘Glerk.
¢ Find, ‘Out'more at TexasLawHelp.' org! ~
The case is preseftly, pending «before* the, 400TH JJUDICIAL DISTRICT. COURT. Of, Eort Bend County sitting in
Richmond#1 Texas. it beats, cause nun 23-0‘DCV;300730 -and.is. styled: \S\

BRUK ADERAWVS.
yy ALUSTATE Vénicke “AND_PROPERTY INSURANCE: ‘COMPANY,
The name a
t
address of the, ae for PLAINTIFF is: 0,
JOE’ ies
GIBSON LEGAL GROUR'PLLG
ae WSS
733,W 21ST STE NG
HOUSTON. ™X 77008
®
\:
832-878-3140 GS
Thepnatureof the schraas ‘of Said PLAINTIFF,‘ is shown 1 by a trué: ard correct Copy, lof the PLAINTIFF*
ORIGINAL PETITION acégmpanying’ j'‘this citation and made. a Bart hereof?
a oS
If this’Citation isn not servere d, “its Sndinbs returned unserved. oetutset? We) seal of said}Cour, at
Richmond, Texas gn ‘thisthe 31St day of dariuary, 2023.
4 my

Oo“p a ae Me ey MCGREW, WALKER, pistRict CLERK:
SF RT/BEND. ‘COUNTY, .TEXAS
AP} ysical Address: "
uuuennttay
21422, :Eugene | Heimann CirclésRoont 31004
Richmond, Texas 77 T7469 \, Ny oe yor.
Mailing. ‘Address:"ae
-.:
= ay

BE ay
301 Jackson Street, "Roof 101,
104
SS Richmond, Texas,
eee i
LONE

4
ue
By. a ix
Depu

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 06, 2023

Case Filing Date

January 27, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Notice: Bruk Adera vs. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties