Party Notice: Nichole Hertel vs. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

On September 16, 2022 a Party Notice was filed involving a dispute between Hertel, Nichole, and State Farm Lloyds, Inc., for Contract - Other Contract in the District Court of Fort Bend County.

Preview
NICHOLE HERTEL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

VS. § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

STATE FARM LLOYDS § 400 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

STATE FARM LLOYDS

Respectfully submitted,

AH VID
State Bar No. 00792937
he olidyefile@germer.com

State Bar No. 00785086
jtatem@germer.com
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served

Kristin Nelson
AW
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2425
Houston, Texas 77002

Ek VIA,
MOV
MOV
MOV.
AS VID
m@g

Ak WIAwW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

NICHOLE HERTEL

vs. C.A. NO.
(JURY)
STATE FARM LLOYDS

AFFIDAVIT OF WESLIE SAWYER

This day appeared before me, the undersigned authority, WESLIE SAWYER, who after
being duly sworn, deposed and stated as follows:

1 "My name is Weslie Sawyer. I am over the age of 18, I have never been convicted.
of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, and I am otherwise competent to make this
affidavit.

2. I am an Assistant Secretary - Treasurer of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. ("Lloyds,
Inc."), attorney-in-fact for State Farm Lloyds. I am also a Finance Director for State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm Mutual"). My business address is One State Farm
Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois 61710-0001.

3 As part of my job duties for State Farm Mutual, I have access to and personal
knowledge of the records of the department that prepares and files the Annual Statements and
similar filings for State Farm Mutual and each of its property and casualty insurance subsidiaries
and affiliates, including State Farm Lloyds.

4. State Farm Lloyds is an association of individual underwriters authorized to
conduct business in Texas as a Lloyd's plan insurer as defined and set out in Chapter 941 of the
Texas Insurance Code.

5 As a Lloyd's plan insurer, State Farm Lloyds has designated an attorney-in-fact
as provided under Texas law. Lloyds Inc., a Texas business corporation, is the attorney-in-fact
in Texas for State Farm Lloyds and, as such, Lloyds Inc. is the agent of State Farm Lloyds.

6. As an officer of these State Farm companies, I have knowledge of their respective
directors, principal officers or underwriters, the type of entity each is, and other similar
information. I have knowledge of the statements in this Affidavit pursuant to my duties in the
above positions and they are true and correct.

7 On June 24, 2022, the Texas Department of Insurance notified State Farm Lloyds
that its Amended Articles of Agreement dated December 10, 2021 had been placed on file and
that its records had been updated to reflect the following changes to the underwriters: Michele
Celeste Russo replaced Annette Romero Martinez.
The current underwriters for State Farm Lloyds are listed below:

° Mark Edward Schwamberger: Mr. Schwamberger is domiciled in Illinois. His
residence and full time place of employment is in Illinois and he has expressed.
an intent to remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

Wensley John Herbert: Mr. Herbert is domiciled in Illinois. His residence and
full time place of employment is in Illinois and he has expressed an intent to
remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

Katinka Meijerink Bryson: Ms. Bryson is domiciled in Illinois. Her residence
and full time place of employment is in Illinois and she has expressed an intent
to remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

Michael James Arnold: Mr. Arnold is domiciled in Illinois. His residence and
full time place of employment is in Illinois and he has expressed an intent to
remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

Kenneth Edward Heidrich: Mr. Heidrich is domiciled in Illinois. His residence
and full time place of employment is in Illinois and he has expressed an intent
to remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

Patricia Elizabeth Roark: Ms. Roark is domiciled in Illinois. Her residence and
full time place of employment is in Illinois and she has expressed an intent to
remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

Kimberly Ann Sterling: Ms. Sterling is domiciled in Illinois. Her residence and
full time place of employment is in Illinois and she has expressed an intent to
remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

Deon Sherie Johnson: Ms. Johnson is domiciled in Illinois. Her residence and
full time place of employment is in Illinois and she has expressed an intent to
remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

Justin Michael Tipsord: Mr. Tipsord is domiciled in Illinois. His residence and.
full time place of employment is in Illinois and he has expressed an intent to
remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

Sara Gay Frankowiak: Ms, Frankowiak is domiciled in Illinois. Her residence
and full time place of employment is in Illinois and she has expressed an intent
to remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

Craig Dean Isaacs: Mr. Isaacs is domiciled in Illinois. His residence and full
time place of employment is in Illinois and he has expressed an intent to remain
in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

pe
e Michele Celeste Russo: Ms. Russo is domiciled in Illinois. Her residence and
full time place of employment is in Illinois and she has expressed an intent to
remain in Illinois while an Underwriter of State Farm Lloyds.

8 At all times since the June 24, 2022 acceptance of the latest Amended Articles of
Agreement by the Texas Department of Insurance, the above named underwriters have had their
residences and full time places of employment in the State of Illinois.

Ae
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.”

Whole
WESLIE SAWYER

SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned authority on this

the [aT say of Dee , 2022.

No Public for the State of Illinois

OFFICIAL SEAL
JENNIFER A. REDD
NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF ILLINOIS
‘My Commission
Expires May 22, 2025
m@g

MOV
Filed
9/16/2022 5:12 PM
Beverley McGrew Walker
District Clerk
Fort Bend County, Texas
Sylvie Le
CAUSE NO.22-DCV-297251

NICHOLE HERTEL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs,
Fort Bend County - 400th Judicial District Court
VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE FARM LLOYDS, INC.

Defendant. FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

COMES NOW Plaintiff Nichole Purcell Hertel hereinafter referred to as (“Plaintiff”) and

files this her Original Petition complaining of Defendant State Farm Lloyds, Inc., hereinafter

referred to as (“Defendant”) and in support thereof would respectfully show unto the court the

following:

I Discovery Control Plai

L Discovery in the matter may be conducted under Level | pursuant to Tex. R. Civ.

Proc. 190.2 expedited actions involving $250,000.00 or less and pursue expedited litigation

pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 169.

il. Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 47(c) Claim for Relief

2 Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 47(c) Plaintiff herein seeks monetary relief of

$250,000.00 or less excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney’s

fees and costs.

iI. Jurisdiction and Venue

3 This claim arises under the common law of the state of Texas and the amount in

controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court.
4 Venue is proper in Fort Bend County, Texas pursuant to C.P.R.C. § 15.002 in that

the event giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Fort Bend County, Texas and the property at issue

is in Fort Bend County, Texas.

Iv. Parties

2 Plaintiff Nichole Hertel is an individual residing in Fort Bend County, Texas.

6 Defendant State Farm Lloyds, Inc. is a domestic insurance company doing business

in Texas. Defendant State Farm Lloyds may be served with process by serving its registered agent

Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7"

Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.

V. Facts

7 Plaintiff purchased a fire and casualty policy (“Policy”) for her home located at

10302 Five Oaks Lane, Missouri City, Texas 77459 (“Property”). That Policy was in full force

and affect as of the dates of Joss during February of 2021. The Policy issued by Defendant insures

the Property against damages caused as a result of freeze and/or frozen pipes within the résidence.

8 During several days in February of 2021, Houston, Texas experienced power

outages and below freezing temperatures causing water within pipes to freeze and damage the

integrity of the pipes.

9 Many people, including Plaintiff, experienced broken pipes and flooding within the

walls, ceiling and floor of their homes.

10. Plaintiff, who had been staying with a relative during the freeze, returned to her

home to find a leak in the ceiling of the garage and entry hall, as well as water pouring out of

ceiling lights, fur downs and walls of the master bedroom and bathroom. There was standing water

in the living room, bedroom, bathroom and closet.
Lk. On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff contacted Bert Schmidt, her insurance agent’s

office to report the Claim and was told an adjuster would be assigned.

12. On February 25, 2021, after being told that no adjuster had been assigned, Plaintiff

called the Defendant’s toll-free number and was told that her claim was a roofing claim and sent a

link to fill out the “Claim Experience Worksheet.”

13. On March 4, 2021, Felton Banks, an adjuster for Defendant arrived to inspect the

damage to the Property. Mr. Banks was only on the Property for an hour and half. At which time,

Plaintiff also provided Mr. Banks a copy of the Policy.

14. On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff received a letter stating that her “loss does not exceed

the deductible.”

15. Plaintiff then called Defendant’s claim representative Patrese Watts. Ms. Watts told

Plaintiff she would email her the Estimate of Damages and instructed Plaintiff to fill out a form

for out-of-pocket expenses and upload related documents including repair estimates, photos and

receipts, to the client portal and complete the Claim Experience Worksheet. Plaintiff explained

that she had already uploaded the documents and completed the worksheet. Ms. Watts informed

Plaintiff that some of the worksheets were lost due to a name change to the form. Plaintiff re-

completed the form and uploaded all of the documents a second time.

16. December of 2021, Plaintiff, still having not received payment to repair her home,

and having lived with dusty exposed cement floors for several months causing her to have a relapse

of her autoimmune disorder, sealed and painted the cement floors to eliminate the dust.

17. February 14, 2022, Plaintiff spoke with Jessica a representative of Defendant and

stated that Plaintiff still had not received the Estimate of Damages as promised and had not heard
anything further from Defendant regarding her claim. Jessica asked Plaintiff to upload the

documents, photos and receipts yet again!

18. Plaintiff subsequently uploaded over 100+ documents a third time.

19. On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff was told that an adjuster would cal! her within 5 -

10 days.

20. On March 3, 2022, Bill Gean, a second adjuster for Defendant, conducted a virtual

inspection of the damage to the Property. Mr. Gean said he thought the Aurora Construction

estimate that Plaintiff submitted was good but asked for an updated estimate since a year had

passed, and costs had increased. Mr. Gean also asked that the toe kicks be removed on the

bathroom vanities.

21. On March 5, 2022, Aurora Construction returned to remove the toe kicks and found

water damage, swelling of wood composite, and mold. Plaintiff uploaded a revised bid and photos

relating to these findings to her client portal.

22. Plaintiff spoke with Monte Griffin with Defendant, who was helping the new claims

representative, Leslie Cooper. Mr. Griffin stated that Plaintiff's content losses had been approved

and she would receive a direct deposit for this amount.

23. On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff received a call from Bill Gean with State Farm saying

he needed to do a reinspection of the Property and could not reconcile the claim based on the

virtual inspection he had conducted. At this time, Plaintiff decided to hire an attorney she had

known for many years to assist her with this matter.

24, On or around June 8, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel sent a demand and notice letter to

Defendant regarding Plaintiff's claim and provided all necessary notice under the Texas Insurance

Code and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act.
25, On July 21, 2022, Bill Gean conducted a reinspection of the Property.

26. On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff received an estimate and summary of loss from

Defendant valuing her loss at far less than the Aurora Construction estimate and what it would

cost Plaintiff to repair her home safely and properly.

27. Defendant has continued to breach its contractual obligations to Plaintiff by

refusing to adequately compensate Plaintiff for the damage to the Property pursuant to the terms

of the Policy.

28. Plaintiff complied with all obligations under the Policy, and all conditions

precedent to recovery have been satisfied by Plaintiff.

29. Defendant continues to delay the payment for the damage to the Property.

30. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff has been forced

to retain legal counsel to represent her with respect to these causes of action.

VI. Causes of Action

31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each allegation contained in Section V above.

Petition as if fully set forth herein.

A. Violations of Texas Insurance Code

Unfair Settlement Practices

32. Defendant’s conduct constitutes multiple violations of the Texas Insurance Code,

Unfair Settlement Practices. TEX. INS CODE §541.060(a), all of which are actionable under TEX.

INS. CODE §541.151.

33. Defendant engaged in the following unfair settlement practices:

a Pursuant to TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060 (a)(1), misrepresenting to Plaintiff

material acts or Policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue by
misrepresenting the true scope and amount of the claim at issue despite the

existence of obvious and easily identifiable property conditions warranting the

extension of further coverage under the policy.

Pursuant to TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060 (a)(2)(a), failing to attempt in good faith

to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable settlement of the Claim, even though

Defendant’s liability under the Policy was reasonably clear. Specifically,

Defendant failed to try to settle the Claim fairly despite the fact that Defendant

knew or should have known of its liability to Plaintiff under the Policy.

Pursuant to TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060 (a)(3), failing to promptly provide

Plaintiff with a reasonable explanation of the basis in the Policy, in relation to

the facts or applicable law, for the Defendant’s denial of the Claim or offer of a

comptomise settlement of the Claim. Specifically, Defendant failed to offer

Plaintiff adequate compensation for damages to the Property without reasonable

explanation as to why full payment was not being made.

Pursuant to TEX. INS. CODE § 541.060 (a)(7), refusing to pay Plaintiff's Claim

without conducting a reasonable investigation with respect to the Claim.

Defendant’s outcome-oriented investigation of the Claim resulted in an unfair

evaluation of the damage to the Property.

34, Defendant knowingly and intentionally committed the foregoing acts, with actual

knowledge of the falsity, unfairness, or deception of the foregoing acts and practices, in violation

of TEX. INS. CODE § 541.002 (1) (formerly Art. 21.21 §2(c)).

Misrepresentation of Insurance Policy Violation
35. Defendant made misrepresentations about Plaintiff’s insurance Policy in violation

of TEX. INS. CODE § 541.061, all of which are actionable under TEX. INS. CODE §541.151.

36. Defendant engaged in the following deceptive insurance practices:

a. Making untrue statements of material fact in violation of §541.061(1).

Specifically, Defendant misrepresented the true scope and value of the Claim

despite the existence of obvious and easily identifiable Property conditions

warranting the extension of further coverage under the Policy.

Failing to state material facts necessary to make other statements not misleading

in violation of §541.061(2). Specifically, Defendant, after the first inspection,

stated that the damage to Plaintiff's home was only $5,496.99, below Plaintiff's

deductible, and therefore Defendant was unable to pay the claim. More than a

year later, Defendant determined that the same damage to Plaintiff's home was

worth $20,645.35.

Making statements in a manner that would mislead a reasonably prudent person

to a false conclusion ofmaterial fact in violation of $541.061(3).

d. Making material misstatement of law in violation of §541.061(4).

37. Plaintiff gave Defendant proper notice of the Claim under the insurance Policy

issued by Defendant.

38. Defendant also violated TEX. INS. CODE §542 by delaying payment of the Claim

following Defendant’s receipt of all items, statements, and forms reasonably requested and

required, longer than the amount of time provided by TEX. INS. CODE §542.058. Plaintiff has

still not received full payment of the amount owed on the Claim, despite providing detailed
information requested to Defendant no less than three times. This conduct constitutes non-payment

of the claim, which is actionable under TEX. INS. CODE §542.060.

Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

39. State Farm, as Plaintiff's fire and casualty insurer, had a duty to deal fairly and in

good faith with Plaintiff in the processing of Plaintiff's freeze Claim. Defendant breached this

duty by refusing to properly investigate, improperly denying benefits, looking for excuses to deny

benefits and refusing to pay benefits timely and taking actions contrary to its duties under the

Texas Liability Insurance Code. Defendant knew or should have known that there was no

reasonable basis for denying or delaying Plaintiff's required benefits. As a result of Defendant’s

breach of these legal duties, Plaintiff suffered legal damages.

40. Defendant also acted in an unconscionable, intentional and/or knowing manner, as

that term is legally defined.

Breach of Contract

41. Defendant insured the Plaintiff's home when the Policy was purchased and

therefore has a contractual obligation to pay Plaintiff replacement value for the storm damage that

is made the basis of this suit pursuant to the Policy. Despite multiple requests, cooperation of the

Plaintiff and demand, Defendant has deliberately and intentionally failed to comply with the

contract between the parties and is therefore liable for breach of contract.

Violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act §17.50 Relief for Consume

42. Section 17.50(a)(4) specifically provides that a violation of the Texas Insurance

Code is also a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). Also, $17.43 Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act provides that the remedies provided are cumulative of any other

remedies.

43. Defendant’s conduct constitutes multiple violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade

Practices Act (“DTPA”) Tex. Bus. & COM. CODE 17.41-63

44. Plaintiff has met all conditions precedent to bring this cause of action against

Defendant. Specifically, Defendant’s violations of DTPA include, without limitation:

a By its acts, omissions and failures, violations of sections 17.46

(2).(5),(7),(9),(12),(20), and (24) of the DTPA, including, unreasonable delays in

the investigation, adjustment and resolution of the Claim, failure to give Plaintiff

the benefit of the doubt and failure to pay for the proper repair of the Property

when the liability has become reasonably clear giving Plaintiff a right to recover

under Section 17.46(b)(2).

Defendant represented to Plaintiff that the Policy, adjusting agent and Policy

services, had characteristics or benefits they did not possess, which gives Plaintiff

a right to recover under Section 17.46(b)(5) of the DTPA.

c Defendant also represented to Plaintiff that the Policy and adjusting services were

of a particular standard, quality or grade, when they were not, in violation of

section 17.46(b)(7) of the DTPA.

Defendant advertised their policy and services with the intent to sell them, not as

advertised, in violation of section 17.46(b)(9) of the DTPA.

e Defendant breached the express warranty that the damages caused by a storm,

like the one that occurred, would be covered under the Policy, entitling Plaintiff

to recover under sections 17.46(b)(12) and (20) and 17.50(a)(2) of the DTPA.
f. Defendant acted unconscionably by taking advantage of Plaintiff's lack of

knowledge, ability and experience to a grossly unfair degree, giving Plaintiffa

right to relief under 17.50(a0(3) of the DTPA

All of the conduct, acts, omissions and failures described herein are unfair

practices in the business of insurance and therefore a violation of section

17.50(a)(4) of the DTPA.

45. All of the acts, omission and failures by Defendant are a producing cause of

Plaintiff's damages and were committed “knowingly” and “intentionally” as defined by the DTPA.

46. Defendant made each of the acts described above, together, and singularly, and

“knowingly,” as defined in the Texas Insurance Code, and cach was a producing cause of

Plaintiff's damages described herein.

VIL. Damage:

47. Plaintiff respectfully incorporates the factual allegations made in paragraph V and

VI into each damage claim asserted herein as if set out word for word therein.

48. The damages caused to the Property have not been properly repaired since the

Claim was made, causing further damage to the Property, and undue hardship and burden on

Plaintiff. These damages are a direct result of Defendant’s mishandling of the Claims in violation

of the laws set forth above.

49. Plaintiff currently estimates the actual damages to the Property covered under the

Policy to be around $62,000.00, not including expenses incurred while displaced from the home

or any pain, suffering and mental anguish suffered by Plaintiff because of the delay in payment

and repair to the Property.

10
50. For Defendant’s non-compliance with the DTPA and Texas Insurance Code, Unfair

Settlement Practices provisions, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, which includes the loss of

the contractual benefits including the benefits that should have been paid pursuant to the Policy,

mental anguish, court costs and attorney fees. For Defendant’s knowing conduct in violating these

laws, Plaintiff respectfully would request treble damages pursuant to TEX. INS. CODE §541.152

and TEX. BUS & COM. CODE §17.50(b)(1).

Sl. Pursuant to TEX. INS. CODE §542.060 and as a result of Defendant’s

noncompliance with Texas Insurance Code Prompt Payment of Claims provisions, Plaintiff is

entitled to the entire amount of the Claim, eighteen (18) percent interest per annum on the amount

of the Claim and reasonable and necessary attorney fees.

52. For Breach of common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff is entitled

to compensatory damages, including all damages from the loss, exemplary damages and damages

for emotional distress. This breach was committed intentionally and with conscious indifference

to Plaintiff
and with “malice,” as defined by Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies

Code. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks the recovery of exemplary damages, to be determined by the fact

finder as sufficient to punish Defendant for the egregious conduct and deter Defendant and others

from committing similar acts in the future.

53. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has been compelled to engage the

services of the attorneys subscribed below. Therefore, under Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil

Practices and Remedies Code, section 541 and 542 of the Texas Insurance Code and section 17.50

of the DTPA, Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum for reasonable and necessary attorney fees.

i
54, Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages and exemplary damages from

Defendant, together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Texas Finance Code Ann. § 304.102

and post judgment interest pursuant to Texas Finance Code Ann. § 304.005(a).

VI. Jury Demand

55. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the

Court enter final judgment in Plaintiff's favor for actual and punitive damages, for court costs,

attorney fees, statutory interest, as well as prejudgment and post judgment interest, and court costs

as provided by law, and such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, which the Court

may deem appropriate under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Kristin Nelson
Kristin Nelson
KIRK LAW FIRM, PLLC
TSBN: 24043760
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2425
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: 713/651-0050
Facsimil 713/651-0051
kkne. Iso rin.conl
Service em ervice@kirklawfirm.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

p2
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.

Erin Pierce on behalf of Kristin Nelson
Bar No. 24043760
epierce@kirklawfirm.com
Envelope ID: 68356544
Status as of 9/19/2022 2:05 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Erin Pierce epierce@kirklawfirm.com 9/16/2022 5:12:11 PM SENT
Kristin KNelson knelson@kirklawfirm.com 9/16/2022 5:12:11 PM SENT
Kirk Law Firm eservice@kirklawfirm.com 9/16/2022 5:12:11 PM SENT
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.

Envelope ID: 70214500
Status as of 11/16/2022 8:47 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status

Kristin KNelson knelson@kirklawfirm.com | 11/16/2022:8:47:05 AM | SENT

—
Case 4:22-cv-04448 Document 1-2 Filed on 12/21/22 in TXSD Page 16 of 45
XM

‘SERVICE FEE NOT COLLECTED peuiveren: ( /1G 2Z
BY DISTRICT CLERK THE STATE OF TEXAS By: ee
CE
CITATION

TO: STATE FARM LLOYDS, INC,
BY SERVING IT'S REGISTERED AGENT CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
D/B/A CSC-LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE COMPANY
211 E 7TH STREET SUITE 620
AUSTIN TX 78701

NOTICE:

You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file a written answer with the
clerk who issued this citation by 10:00 a.m. on Monday next following the expiration of twenty days after you were
served this citation and PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION filed on September 16, 2022, a default judgment may
be taken against you. In addition to filing a written answer with the clerk, you may be required to make initial
disclosures to the other parties of this suit. These disclosures generally must be made no later than 30 days after
you file your answer with the clerk. Find out more at TexasLawHelp.org.

The case is presently pending before the 400TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of Fort Bend County sitting in
Richmond, Texas. It bears cause number 22-DCV-297251 and is styled:

NICHOLE HERTEL VS. STATE FARM LLOYDS, INC.

The name and address of the attorney for PLAINTIFF(S) is:

KRISTIN NELSON
KIRK LAW FIRM PLLC
440 LOUISIANA STREET SUITE 2425
HOUSTON TX 77002
713-651-0050

The nature of the demands of said PLAINTIFF(S) is shown by a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S
ORIGINAL PETITION accompanying this citation and made a part hereof.

If this Citation is not served, it shall be returned unserved. Issued under my hand and seal of said Court, at
Richmond, Texas, on this the 16th day of November, 2022.

BEVERLEY MCGREW WALKER, DISTRICT CLERK
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
Physical Address:
1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 31004 a Faye
Richmond, Texas 77469
Mailing Address: nest Ss
301 Jackson Street, Room 101 ae 2 ,
Richmond, € ‘469
bon
Bi <=
U “Depui ty, jerk RAZA YASEEN
Telep| (281) 341-4562 wt a
Ferree geo ee
' erres ulta/22 “tapas
a &-9) AM

SERVICE

m@g

We
We
Wr
AOS VID
HOL

m@g
AK VIA,
HOL
m@g
12/21/22, 1:49 PM Summary Filing

Jurisdiction: Fort Bend County - 400th Judicial District Court Case Category: Civil - Contract
Case Type: Other Contract
Payment Account: File and Serve Texas Monthly Billing Attorney: James Tatem

Case Number: 22-DCV-297251 Hearing Date is not available in this jurisdiction

Client Matter ID:110936 Date Filed: 12/19/2022 11:46:18
AM

Defendant or
eee
State Farm
By Serving It's Registered Agent Corporation Service Company,
rt!
Pea
TEU

v Respondent Lloyds, Inc. dibla CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company 211 E. 7th
Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas, 78701

Plaintiff or Pe Nichole Hert Kristin Nel
titioner el son

Soe Answ
er/Res
bela Fy
bert
ya
PTT
FI
tty
Eons
Accepted ponse
12/19/202 File &
(Lead HERTELAn
Does not c
HERTEL An
Docu ontain sen $0.00
2 03:40:56 Serve ment) swer SFL. sitive data
swer SFL
PM
Note t
° Cler
k:

(Lead
Accepted Docu
Jury Fee Does not c
12/19/202 File & ment) HERTEL Ju
(1° $10. ontain sen
HERTEL Ju $10.0
2 03:40:56 Serve Note t ry Demand 00) sitive data
ry Demand 0
PM ° Cler
k:

Responsible for Filing Fees: State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Send Accepted Notifications To:

eoYes James Alexander Tatem jtatem@germer.com Sent Unopened
Yes Kristin Nelson knelson@kirklawfirm.com Sent Unopened

about:blank 1/2
Summary Filing

a
12/21/22, 1:49 PM

Yes Erin Pierce epierce@kirklawfirm.com Sent Unopened
Yes Kirk Law Firm eservice@kirklawfirm.com Sent Unopened
Yes Breanna Poole bpoole@germer.com Sent Unopened
Yes Sarah Avila savila@germer.com Sent Unopened
Yes Christine Hernandez chernandez@germer.com Sent Unopened
Yes Cynthia Wallace cwallace@germer.com Sent Unopened

Yes Dale "Rett" Holidy holidyefile@germer.com Sent Unopened

Ce Mer- EL

Total Redaction Fees($) $0.00
Total Mail Service Fees($) $0.00

Total Provider Tax Fees($) $0.00

Total Provider Service Fees($) $2.24

Total Court Service Fees($) $0.00

Total Service Tax Fees($) $0.00

Total Filing & Service Fees($) $0.00

Total Court Filing Fees($) $ 10.00

Total Court Party Fees($) $0.00

Total Court Case Fees($) $0.00

Convenience Fee($) $1.00

Total Fees($) $13.24

about:blank 212
WH

AH VIDA,
HOL

m@g
AK VIA,
HOL
m@g
12/21/22, 1:49 PM Summary Filing

Jurisdiction: Fort Bend County - 400th Judicial District Court Case Category: Civil - Contract
Case Type: Other Contract
Payment Account: File and Serve Texas Monthly Billing Attorney: James Tatem

Case Number: 22-DCV-297251 Hearing Date is not available in this jurisdiction

Client Matter ID:110936 Date Filed: 12/19/2022 11:46:18
AM

Defendant or
eee
State Farm
By Serving It's Registered Agent Corporation Service Company,
rt!
Pea
TEU

v Respondent Lloyds, Inc. dibla CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company 211 E. 7th
Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas, 78701

Plaintiff or Pe Nichole Hert Kristin Nel
titioner el son

(Lead
Accepted Docu
Jury Fee Does not c
12/19/202 File & ment) HERTEL Ju
(1° $10. ontain sen
HERTEL Ju $10.0
2 03:40:56 Serve Note t ry Demand 00) sitive data
ry Demand 0
PM ° Cler
k:

Responsible for Filing Fees: State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Send Accepted Notifications To:

eoYes James Alexander Tatem jtatem@germer.com Sent Unopened
Yes Kristin Nelson knelson@kirklawfirm.com Sent Unopened

about:blank 1/2
Summary Filing

a
12/21/22, 1:49 PM

Yes Erin Pierce epierce@kirklawfirm.com S

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

December 21, 2022

Case Filing Date

September 16, 2022

County

Parties

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

Party Notice: Nichole Hertel vs. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties