Preview
CAUSE NO.
ASSETS, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE
COMPANY
Defendant.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW, ssets, LLC, Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’), and file
Original Petition against Defendant Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company Tower Hill and
respectfully would show this court as follows:
PARTIES
Plaintiff G1 Assets, LLC is a company with its principal place of business in Fort
Bend County, Texas
Defendant, Tower Hill, is a foreign insurance company engaged in the business of
insurance in the State of Texas at all times material to this action. This defendant may be served with
process through i s registered agent T Corporation System Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas,
Texas
DISCOVERY LEVEL
Plaintiff intend for discovery to be conducted under Level of Rule 190 of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure.
JURISDICTION
4. The Court has jurisdiction over this controversy because the damages are within the
jurisdictional limits of this court. Plaintiff is seeking monetary relief of $250,000.00 or less and non-
monetary relief. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this petition during and/or after the discovery
process.
5 The Court has jurisdiction over Defendant, Tower Hill, because this defendant
engaged in the business of insurance in the State of Texas, and Plaintiff’s causes of action arise out
of Tower Hill’s business activities in the State of Texas.
VENUE
6 Venue is proper in Fort Bend County, Texas, because the insured property is situated
in Fort Bend County, Texas. TEX. CIv. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.032.
FACTS
7 Plaintiff is the owner of a property insurance policy number (‘the
Policy”) issued by Tower Hill.
8 Plaintiff owns the insured property located at 6610 Rockergate Drive, Missouri City,
Texas 77489 (hereinafter referred to as “the Property”).
9 On or about February 14, 2021, Plaintiff's Property suffered damage due to an
unprecedented winter storm that caused the pipes to explode (“the Storm”). The Storm caused
significant interior water damage to the Property, including damage to the kitchen, pantry, dining
room, living room closets, garage, bedrooms, hall, bathrooms, and siding.
10. Following the Storm, Plaintiff submitted a claim to Tower Hill for the damage the
Property sustained as a result of the Storm. Plaintiff requested that Tower Hill cover the cost of
repairs and replacement of the damages sustained at the Property.
11. Defendant Tower Hill assigned Kimlee Pugh (“Pugh”) as the adjuster on the claim.
Pugh was improperly trained and failed to perform a thorough investigation of the claim, spending
an inadequate amount of time inspecting the Property. Specifically, Pugh only accounted for
$28,579.23 in damages, an amount well below the total amount of damages sustained as a result of
the Storm. The damages acknowledged by Tower Hill were grossly undervalued and did not allow
for adequate funds to cover the cost of repairs to all the damages sustained. This estimate was a
deliberate attempt to underpay Plaintiff's claim.
12. Understandably dissatisfied with Tower Hill’s estimate of damages, Plaintiff hired an
experienced public adjusterto evaluate the damages caused by the Storm. This caused Tower Hill to
conduct a reinspection of the Property and subsequently acknowledge $51,846.35 in damages. This
ount was still well below the total amount of damage sustained as a result of the Storm. The storm
damage to the Property has been well documented and provided to Tower Hill. A small sample of
that obvious damage is below:
Ls ae
| Ite} ee
Hh |
aa), Lough
a
13. Defendant Tower Hill then misrepresented that the Property was vacant in order to
wrongfully reduce the limit of liability. Tower Hill’s failure to honor the terms of its own Policy has
caused the needless delay of payment on Plaintiff's claim.
14, Tower Hill and its personnel failed to thoroughly review and properly supervise the
work of its assigned adjusters. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts and omissions set forth above
and further described herein, Plaintiff was wrongfully denied on the claim and continues to suffer
damages.
15. Defendant set about to deny and/or underpay on properly covered damages.
Defendant failed to provide full coverage for the damages sustained by Plaintiff and/or under-scoped
Plaintiff's damages, thereby denying adequate and sufficient payment on Plaintiff's claim. As a
result of Defendant’s agents’ unreasonable investigation, Plaintiff's claim was improperly adjusted,
and Plaintiff was wrongfully denied on the claim and has suffered damages. The mishandling of
Plaintiff's claim has also caused a delay in Plaintiff's ability to fully repair the Property, which has
resulted in additional damages. To this date, Plaintiff has yet to receive the full payment that it is
entitled to under the Policy.
16. As detailed in the paragraphs above, Tower Hill wrongfully denied Plaintiffs claim
for repairs of the Property, even though the Policy provided coverage for losses such as those suffered
by Plaintiff.
17. To date, Tower Hill continues to delay in the payment for the damages to the
Property. As such, Plaintiff has not been paid in full for the damages to the Property.
18. Defendant Tower Hill 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. Tower Hill’s conduct constitutes a breach of the insurance
contract between Tower Hill and Plaintiff.
19. 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).
20. Defendant failed to make an attempt to settle Plaintiffs claim in a fair manner,
although they were 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)
21. Defendant failed to explain to Plaintiff the reasons for its offer of an inadequate
settlement. Specifically, Defendant failed to offer Plaintiff adequate compensation, without any
explanation why full payment was not being made. Furthermore, Defendant did not communicate
that any future settlements or payments would be forthcoming to pay for the entire losses covered
under the Policy, nor did they provide any explanation for the failure to adequately settle Plaintiff's
5
Claim. Defendant’s conduct is a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices.
Tex. INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(3).
22. 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).
23. Defendant refused to fully compensate Plaintiff, under the terms of the Policy, even
though Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Specifically, Defendant, performed
an outcome-oriented investigation of Plaintiff's claim, which resulted in a biased, unfair, and
inequitable evaluation of Plaintiff's claim on the Property. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a
violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(7).
24. As detailed earlier, Defendant Tower Hill failed to meet its obligations under the
Texas Insurance Code regarding beginning an investigation of Plaintiffs claim and requesting all
information reasonably necessary to investigate Plaintiffs claim, within the statutorily mandated
time of receiving notice of Plaintiff’s claim. Tower Hill’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas
Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. TEX. INS. CODE § 542.055.
25. Defendant Tower Hill failed to accept or deny Plaintiff's full and entire claim within
the statutorily mandated time of receiving all necessary information. Tower Hill’s conduct
constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. TEX. INS. CODE §
542.056.
26. Defendant Tower Hill 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. Tower
Hill’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. TEX.
INS. CODE § 542.058.
27. From and after the time Plaintiffs claim was presented to Defendant Tower Hill, the
liability of Tower Hill to pay the full claim in accordance with the terms of the Policy was reasonably
clear. However, Tower Hill 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.
Tower Hill’s conduct constitutes a breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing.
28. 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.
29. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff was forced to retain
the professional services of the attorney and law firm who are representing them with respect to these
causes of action.
30. In compliance with TEx. INS. CODE §542A .003, Plaintiff timely gave pre-suit notice
to Defendant prior to filing suit. More than sixty days has elapsed since Plaintiff sent its notice.
CAUSES OF ACTION
31. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated by reference in the following:
I Causes of Action Against Tower Hill
32. Tower Hill intentionally breached its contract with Plaintiff, intentionally violated the
Texas Insurance Code and intentionally breached the common law duty of good faith and fair
dealing.
I Breach of Contract
39. Tower Hill breached insurance contract it had with Plaintiff. Tower Hill breached the
contract by its failure/and or refusal to adequately pay the claim as it is obligated to do under the
terms of the Policy in question and under the laws in the State of Texas.
7
II. Noncompliance with Texas Insurance C ode: Unfair Settlement Practices
40. Defendant Tower Hill’s conduct constitutes multiple violations of the Texas
Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060(a). All violations under this
article were made actionable by TEX. INS. CoDE § 541.151.
41. Defendant Tower Hill’s unfair settlement practice, as described above, of
misrepresenting to Plaintiff material facts relating to the coverage at issue, constitutes an unfair
method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. TEX.
INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(1).
42. Defendant Tower Hill’s unfair settlement practice, as described above, of failing to
attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of the claim, even though
Tower Hill’s liability under the Policy was reasonably clear, constitutes an unfair method of
competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. TEX. INS. CODE
§ 541.060(a)(2)(A).
43. Defendant Tower Hill’s unfair settlement practice, as described above, of failing to
promptly provide Plaintiff with a reasonable explanation of the basis in the Policy, in relation to the
facts or applicable law, for its offer of a compromise settlement of the claim, constitutes an unfair
method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. TEX.
INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(3).
44, Defendant Tower Hill’s unfair settlement practices, as described above, of failing
within a reasonable time to affirm or deny coverage of the claim to Plaintiff, orto submit a reservation
of rights to Plaintiff, constitutes an unfair method of compensation and an unfair and deceptive act
or practice in the business of insurance. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(4).
45. Defendant Tower Hill’s unfair settlement practice, as described above, of refusing to
pay Plaintiffs claim without conducting a reasonable investigation, constitutes an unfair method of
8
competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. TEX. INS. CODE
§ 541.060(a)(7).
Til. Noncompliance with Texas Insurance C ode: Prompt Payment of Claims Statute
46. Plaintiff is entitled to interest and attorney fees under TEX. INS. CODE §542.060 for
violating the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of claims TEX. INS. CODE §542.051 et. seq.
47. Tower Hill failed to acknowledge receipt ofPlaintiffs claim, commence investigation
of the claim, and request from Plaintiff all items, statements, and forms that it reasonably believed
would be required within the applicable time constraints under TEX. INS. CODE §542.055.
48. Tower Hill failed to notify Plaintiff in writing of its acceptance or rejection of the
claim within applicable time constraints under TEX. INS. CODE §542.056.
49. Tower Hill delayed the payment of Plaintiff's claim following its receipt of all items,
statements, and forms reasonably requested and required, longer than the amount of time provided
for under TEX. INS. CODE §542.058.
Iv. Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
50. Tower Hill breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to adequately
and reasonably investigate and evaluate Plaintiff's claim while it knew or should have known, by the
exercise of reasonable diligence, that its liability was reasonably clear.
Vv Knowledge
51. Each of the acts described above, together and singularly, was done “knowingly” as
that term is used in the Texas Insurance Code.
REQUEST FOR REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES
52. Plaintiff hereby requests that Defendant complies with the Required Disclosures as
provided by Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Required Disclosures must be made
within thirty (30) days after the filing of the first answer. TEx. R. Civ. P. 194.2.
9
RULE 193.7 NOTICE
53. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff herby gives
actual notice to Defendant that any and all documents and materials produced in response to written
discovery or at a deposition may be used as evidence in this case; and, that any such materials may
be used as evidence against the party producing the document at any pretrial proceeding and/or at
the trial of this matter without the necessity of authenticating the document and/or materials produced
in discovery.
DAMAGES
54. Plaintiff would show that all the aforementioned acts, taken together or singularly,
constitute the producing causes of the damages sustained by Plaintiff.
55. The damages caused by the Storm have not been properly addressed or repaired in
the months since the Storm, causing further damages to the Property, and causing 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.
56. For breach of contract, Plaintiff is entitled to regain the benefit of its bargain, which
is the amount of its claim, together with attorney’s fees.
57. 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, court costs, and attorney’s fees. For knowing conduct of the acts
described above, Plaintiff asks for three times its actual damages. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.152.
58. For noncompliance with Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims, Plaintiff
is entitled to the amount of the claim, as well as interest per annum on the amount of such claim as
damages, together with attorney’s fees. TEX. INS. CODE § 542.060.
10
59. 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 the insurer’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 stress.
60. 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 Plaintiff's attorney in the
preparation and trial of this action, including any appeals to the Court of A ppeals and/or the Supreme
Court of Texas
JURY DEMAND
61. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury and tenders the appropriate fee.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that this Court cites Defendant
to appear and answer herein and that Plaintiff has judgment taken against Defendant and recover
from Defendant all damages allowed by law, and that Plaintiff be awarded attorneys’ fees for trial
and any appeal of this case, for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of
court, and such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff
is justly entitled.
[SIGNATURE BLOCK ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
11
Respectfully submitted,
THE PoTTs LAW FIRM, LLP
By’ /s/ Andrew A. Woellner
Andrew A. Woellner
SBN: 24060850
Tabatha R. Fuentes
SBN: 24094012
3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
Houston, Texas 77098
Telephone (713) 963-8881
Facsimile (713) 583-5388
Emails: awoellner@ potts-law.com
tfuentes@ potts-law.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
12
Preview
CAUSE NO. ASSETS, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW, ssets, LLC, Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’), and file Original Petition against Defendant Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company Tower Hill and respectfully would show this court as follows: PARTIES Plaintiff G1 Assets, LLC is a company with its principal place of business in Fort Bend County, Texas Defendant, Tower Hill, is a foreign insurance company engaged in the business of insurance in the State of Texas at all times material to this action. This defendant may be served with process through i s registered agent T Corporation System Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas DISCOVERY LEVEL Plaintiff intend for discovery to be conducted under Level of Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. JURISDICTION 4. The Court has jurisdiction over this controversy because the damages are within the jurisdictional limits of this court. Plaintiff is seeking monetary relief of $250,000.00 or less and non- monetary relief. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this petition during and/or after the discovery process. 5 The Court has jurisdiction over Defendant, Tower Hill, because this defendant engaged in the business of insurance in the State of Texas, and Plaintiff’s causes of action arise out of Tower Hill’s business activities in the State of Texas. VENUE 6 Venue is proper in Fort Bend County, Texas, because the insured property is situated in Fort Bend County, Texas. TEX. CIv. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.032. FACTS 7 Plaintiff is the owner of a property insurance policy number (‘the Policy”) issued by Tower Hill. 8 Plaintiff owns the insured property located at 6610 Rockergate Drive, Missouri City, Texas 77489 (hereinafter referred to as “the Property”). 9 On or about February 14, 2021, Plaintiff's Property suffered damage due to an unprecedented winter storm that caused the pipes to explode (“the Storm”). The Storm caused significant interior water damage to the Property, including damage to the kitchen, pantry, dining room, living room closets, garage, bedrooms, hall, bathrooms, and siding. 10. Following the Storm, Plaintiff submitted a claim to Tower Hill for the damage the Property sustained as a result of the Storm. Plaintiff requested that Tower Hill cover the cost of repairs and replacement of the damages sustained at the Property. 11. Defendant Tower Hill assigned Kimlee Pugh (“Pugh”) as the adjuster on the claim. Pugh was improperly trained and failed to perform a thorough investigation of the claim, spending an inadequate amount of time inspecting the Property. Specifically, Pugh only accounted for $28,579.23 in damages, an amount well below the total amount of damages sustained as a result of the Storm. The damages acknowledged by Tower Hill were grossly undervalued and did not allow for adequate funds to cover the cost of repairs to all the damages sustained. This estimate was a deliberate attempt to underpay Plaintiff's claim. 12. Understandably dissatisfied with Tower Hill’s estimate of damages, Plaintiff hired an experienced public adjusterto evaluate the damages caused by the Storm. This caused Tower Hill to conduct a reinspection of the Property and subsequently acknowledge $51,846.35 in damages. This ount was still well below the total amount of damage sustained as a result of the Storm. The storm damage to the Property has been well documented and provided to Tower Hill. A small sample of that obvious damage is below: Ls ae | Ite} ee Hh | aa), Lough a 13. Defendant Tower Hill then misrepresented that the Property was vacant in order to wrongfully reduce the limit of liability. Tower Hill’s failure to honor the terms of its own Policy has caused the needless delay of payment on Plaintiff's claim. 14, Tower Hill and its personnel failed to thoroughly review and properly supervise the work of its assigned adjusters. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts and omissions set forth above and further described herein, Plaintiff was wrongfully denied on the claim and continues to suffer damages. 15. Defendant set about to deny and/or underpay on properly covered damages. Defendant failed to provide full coverage for the damages sustained by Plaintiff and/or under-scoped Plaintiff's damages, thereby denying adequate and sufficient payment on Plaintiff's claim. As a result of Defendant’s agents’ unreasonable investigation, Plaintiff's claim was improperly adjusted, and Plaintiff was wrongfully denied on the claim and has suffered damages. The mishandling of Plaintiff's claim has also caused a delay in Plaintiff's ability to fully repair the Property, which has resulted in additional damages. To this date, Plaintiff has yet to receive the full payment that it is entitled to under the Policy. 16. As detailed in the paragraphs above, Tower Hill wrongfully denied Plaintiffs claim for repairs of the Property, even though the Policy provided coverage for losses such as those suffered by Plaintiff. 17. To date, Tower Hill continues to delay in the payment for the damages to the Property. As such, Plaintiff has not been paid in full for the damages to the Property. 18. Defendant Tower Hill 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. Tower Hill’s conduct constitutes a breach of the insurance contract between Tower Hill and Plaintiff. 19. 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). 20. Defendant failed to make an attempt to settle Plaintiffs claim in a fair manner, although they were 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) 21. Defendant failed to explain to Plaintiff the reasons for its offer of an inadequate settlement. Specifically, Defendant failed to offer Plaintiff adequate compensation, without any explanation why full payment was not being made. Furthermore, Defendant did not communicate that any future settlements or payments would be forthcoming to pay for the entire losses covered under the Policy, nor did they provide any explanation for the failure to adequately settle Plaintiff's 5 Claim. Defendant’s conduct is a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices. Tex. INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(3). 22. 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). 23. Defendant refused to fully compensate Plaintiff, under the terms of the Policy, even though Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Specifically, Defendant, performed an outcome-oriented investigation of Plaintiff's claim, which resulted in a biased, unfair, and inequitable evaluation of Plaintiff's claim on the Property. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(7). 24. As detailed earlier, Defendant Tower Hill failed to meet its obligations under the Texas Insurance Code regarding beginning an investigation of Plaintiffs claim and requesting all information reasonably necessary to investigate Plaintiffs claim, within the statutorily mandated time of receiving notice of Plaintiff’s claim. Tower Hill’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. TEX. INS. CODE § 542.055. 25. Defendant Tower Hill failed to accept or deny Plaintiff's full and entire claim within the statutorily mandated time of receiving all necessary information. Tower Hill’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. TEX. INS. CODE § 542.056. 26. Defendant Tower Hill 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. Tower Hill’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims. TEX. INS. CODE § 542.058. 27. From and after the time Plaintiffs claim was presented to Defendant Tower Hill, the liability of Tower Hill to pay the full claim in accordance with the terms of the Policy was reasonably clear. However, Tower Hill 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. Tower Hill’s conduct constitutes a breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. 28. 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. 29. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff was forced to retain the professional services of the attorney and law firm who are representing them with respect to these causes of action. 30. In compliance with TEx. INS. CODE §542A .003, Plaintiff timely gave pre-suit notice to Defendant prior to filing suit. More than sixty days has elapsed since Plaintiff sent its notice. CAUSES OF ACTION 31. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated by reference in the following: I Causes of Action Against Tower Hill 32. Tower Hill intentionally breached its contract with Plaintiff, intentionally violated the Texas Insurance Code and intentionally breached the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. I Breach of Contract 39. Tower Hill breached insurance contract it had with Plaintiff. Tower Hill breached the contract by its failure/and or refusal to adequately pay the claim as it is obligated to do under the terms of the Policy in question and under the laws in the State of Texas. 7 II. Noncompliance with Texas Insurance C ode: Unfair Settlement Practices 40. Defendant Tower Hill’s conduct constitutes multiple violations of the Texas Insurance Code, Unfair Settlement Practices. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060(a). All violations under this article were made actionable by TEX. INS. CoDE § 541.151. 41. Defendant Tower Hill’s unfair settlement practice, as described above, of misrepresenting to Plaintiff material facts relating to the coverage at issue, constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(1). 42. Defendant Tower Hill’s unfair settlement practice, as described above, of failing to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of the claim, even though Tower Hill’s liability under the Policy was reasonably clear, constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(2)(A). 43. Defendant Tower Hill’s unfair settlement practice, as described above, of failing to promptly provide Plaintiff with a reasonable explanation of the basis in the Policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for its offer of a compromise settlement of the claim, constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(3). 44, Defendant Tower Hill’s unfair settlement practices, as described above, of failing within a reasonable time to affirm or deny coverage of the claim to Plaintiff, orto submit a reservation of rights to Plaintiff, constitutes an unfair method of compensation and an unfair and deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(4). 45. Defendant Tower Hill’s unfair settlement practice, as described above, of refusing to pay Plaintiffs claim without conducting a reasonable investigation, constitutes an unfair method of 8 competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060(a)(7). Til. Noncompliance with Texas Insurance C ode: Prompt Payment of Claims Statute 46. Plaintiff is entitled to interest and attorney fees under TEX. INS. CODE §542.060 for violating the Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of claims TEX. INS. CODE §542.051 et. seq. 47. Tower Hill failed to acknowledge receipt ofPlaintiffs claim, commence investigation of the claim, and request from Plaintiff all items, statements, and forms that it reasonably believed would be required within the applicable time constraints under TEX. INS. CODE §542.055. 48. Tower Hill failed to notify Plaintiff in writing of its acceptance or rejection of the claim within applicable time constraints under TEX. INS. CODE §542.056. 49. Tower Hill delayed the payment of Plaintiff's claim following its receipt of all items, statements, and forms reasonably requested and required, longer than the amount of time provided for under TEX. INS. CODE §542.058. Iv. Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 50. Tower Hill breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to adequately and reasonably investigate and evaluate Plaintiff's claim while it knew or should have known, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, that its liability was reasonably clear. Vv Knowledge 51. Each of the acts described above, together and singularly, was done “knowingly” as that term is used in the Texas Insurance Code. REQUEST FOR REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES 52. Plaintiff hereby requests that Defendant complies with the Required Disclosures as provided by Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Required Disclosures must be made within thirty (30) days after the filing of the first answer. TEx. R. Civ. P. 194.2. 9 RULE 193.7 NOTICE 53. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff herby gives actual notice to Defendant that any and all documents and materials produced in response to written discovery or at a deposition may be used as evidence in this case; and, that any such materials may be used as evidence against the party producing the document at any pretrial proceeding and/or at the trial of this matter without the necessity of authenticating the document and/or materials produced in discovery. DAMAGES 54. Plaintiff would show that all the aforementioned acts, taken together or singularly, constitute the producing causes of the damages sustained by Plaintiff. 55. The damages caused by the Storm have not been properly addressed or repaired in the months since the Storm, causing further damages to the Property, and causing 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. 56. For breach of contract, Plaintiff is entitled to regain the benefit of its bargain, which is the amount of its claim, together with attorney’s fees. 57. 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, court costs, and attorney’s fees. For knowing conduct of the acts described above, Plaintiff asks for three times its actual damages. TEX. INS. CODE § 541.152. 58. For noncompliance with Texas Insurance Code, Prompt Payment of Claims, Plaintiff is entitled to the amount of the claim, as well as interest per annum on the amount of such claim as damages, together with attorney’s fees. TEX. INS. CODE § 542.060. 10 59. 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 the insurer’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 stress. 60. 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 Plaintiff's attorney in the preparation and trial of this action, including any appeals to the Court of A ppeals and/or the Supreme Court of Texas JURY DEMAND 61. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury and tenders the appropriate fee. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that this Court cites Defendant to appear and answer herein and that Plaintiff has judgment taken against Defendant and recover from Defendant all damages allowed by law, and that Plaintiff be awarded attorneys’ fees for trial and any appeal of this case, for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of court, and such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff is justly entitled. [SIGNATURE BLOCK ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 11 Respectfully submitted, THE PoTTs LAW FIRM, LLP By’ /s/ Andrew A. Woellner Andrew A. Woellner SBN: 24060850 Tabatha R. Fuentes SBN: 24094012 3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900 Houston, Texas 77098 Telephone (713) 963-8881 Facsimile (713) 583-5388 Emails: awoellner@ potts-law.com tfuentes@ potts-law.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 12