Legal Document: U-HAUL CO. OF CONNECTICUT Et Al v. JUAREZ, NAYELI Et Al

On June 11, 2024 a SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT was filed involving a dispute between Repwest Insurance Company, U-Haul Co. Of Arizona, U-Haul Co. Of Connecticut, and Ashan Cox, Clinton Cox, Nayeli Juarez, Nicole Cupak, for M50 - Misc - Declaratory Judgment in the District Court of Fairfield County.

Preview
SUMMONS - CIVIL For information on STATE OF CONNECTICUT
JD-CV-1 Rev. 2-22 ADA accommodations, SUPERIOR COURT
C.G.S. §§ 51-346, 51-347, 51-349, 51-350, 52-45a, 52-48, 52-259; contact a court clerk or
P.B. §§ 3-1 through 3-21, 8-1, 10-13 go to: wwwjud.ct.gov/ADA. www jud.ct.gov
Instructions are on page 2.
oO Select if amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is LESS than $2,500.

(] Select if amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is $2,500 or MORE.
Select if claiming other relief in addition to, or in place of, money or damages.

TO: Any proper officer
By authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service of this summons and attached complaint.
‘Address of court clerk (Number, street, town and zip code) Telephone number of clerk Return Date (Must be a Tuesday)
1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604 (203 ) 579 — 6527 July 16, 2024
[x] Judicial District G ‘At (City/Town) Case type code (See list on page 2)
[1 Housing Session (J Number: Bridgeport Major: M Minor: 50
For the plaintiff(s) enter the appearance of:
Name and address of attorney, law firm or plaintiff self-represented (Number, street, town and zip code) Juris number (if attorney or law firm)
Charles T. Gura, Esq. - Marshall Dennehey PC, 700 State Street, 3rd Fl, New Haven, CT 06511 413237
Telephone number Signature of plaintiff (f self-represented)
(203) 714 — 4560
The attorney or law firm appearing for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if E-mail address for delivery of papers under Section 10-13 of the
self-represented, agrees to accept papers (service) electronically Connecticut Practice Book (if agreed)
in this case under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Practice Book. [x] Yes [-] No ctgura@mdwcg.com

Parties Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and address of each party (Number; street; P.O. Box; town; state; zip; country, if not USA)
First Name: U-HAUL CO. OF CONNECTICUT
P-01
plaintiff Address: 3029 Fairfield Ave, Bridgeport, CT 06605
Additional Name: U-HAUL CO. OF ARIZONA
P-02
plaintiff Address: 3029 Fairfield Ave, Bridgeport, CT 06605
First Name: JUAREZ, NAYELI
D-01
defendant Address: 413 West Main Street, Stamford, Connecticut 06902
Additional Name: CUPAK, NICOLE
D-02
defendant Address: 1816 West Iron Gun Place, Citrus Springs, Florida 34434
Additional Name: COX, CLINTON
D-03
defendant Address: 430 Wilmont Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06607
Additional Name: COX, ASHAN
D-04
defendant Address: 132 Locust Street, Unit 12, Waterbury, Connecticut 06704
Total number of plaintiffs: 3 Total number of defendants: 4 Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional parties

Notice to each defendant
4 You are being sued. This is a summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached states the claims the plaintiff is making against you.
2. To receive further notices, you or your attorney must file an Appearance (form JD-CL-12) with the clerk at the address above. Generally,
it must be filed on or before the second day after the Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to
court on the Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to appear.
If you or your attorney do not file an Appearance on time, a default judgment may be entered against you. You can get an Appearance
form at the court address above, or on-line at https://jud.ct.gov/webforms/.
If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim being made against you in this lawsuit, you should immediately contact
your insurance representative. Other actions you may take are described in the Connecticut Practice Book, which may be found ina
superior court law library or on-line at https://www jud.ct.gov/pb.htm.
5. If you have questions about the summons and complaint, you should talk to an attorney.
The court staff is not allowed to give advice on legal matters.
Date ‘Signed (Sign and select proper box) [x] Commissioner of Superior Court Name of person signing
6/4/2024 oO Clerk Charles T. Gura, Esq.
If this summons is signed by a Clerk: For Court Use Only
a. The signing has been done so that the plaintiff(s) will not be denied access to the courts.
File Date
b. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff(s) to ensure that service is made in the manner provided by law.
c. The court staff is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit.
d The Clerk signing this summons at the request of the plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any
errors or omissions in the summons, any allegations contained in the complaint, or the service of the
summons or complaint.
| certify | have read and Signed (Self-represented plaintiff) Date Docket Number
understand the above:
Page 1 of 2
CIVIL SUMMONS STATE OF CONNECTICUT
CONTINUATION OF PARTIES SUPERIOR COURT
JD-CV-2 Rev. 9-12
First named Plaintiff (Last, First, Middle Initial)
U-HAUL CO. OF CONNECTICUT
First named Defendant (Last, First, Middle Initial)
JUAREZ, NAYELI

Additional Plaintiffs
Name (Last, First, Middle Initial, if individual) ‘Address (Number, Street, Town and Zip Code) ‘CODE
REPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY - 2721 N Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85004
03

Additional Defendants
Name (Last, First, Middle Initial, if individual) Address (Number, Street, Town and Zip Code) ‘CODE
05

11
FOR COURT USE ONLY- File Date

14 Docket number

CIVIL SUMMONS-Continuation
Instructions
1. Type or print legibly. If you are a self-represented party, this summons must be signed by a clerk of the court.
2. If there is more than one defendant, make a copy of the summons for each additional defendant. Each defendant must receive a copy of
this summons. Each copy of the summons must show who signed the summons and when it was signed. If there are more than two
plaintiffs or more than four defendants, complete the Civil Summons Continuation of Parties (form JD-CV-2) and attach it to the original
and all copies of the summons.
Attach the summons to the complaint, and attach a copy of the summons to each copy of the complaint. Include a copy of the Civil
Summons Continuation of Parties form, if applicable.
After service has been made by a proper officer, file the original papers and the officer's return of service with the clerk of the court.
Use this summons for the case type codes shown below.
Do not use this summons for the following actions:
(a) Family matters (for example divorce, child support, (e) Administrative appeals
custody, parentage, and visitation matters) (f) Proceedings pertaining to arbitration
(b) Any actions or proceedings in which an attachment, (g) Summary Process (Eviction) actions
garnishment or replevy is sought (h) Entry and Detainer proceedings
(c) Applications for change of name (i) Housing Code Enforcement actions
(d) Probate appeals

Case Type Codes

MAJOR CODE MAJOR CODE
DESCRIPTION
Major! MINOR DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
Major? MINOR DESCRIPTION
Minor Minor
Contracts c00 Construction - All other Property POO Foreclosure
c10 Construction - State and Local Pi0 Partition
C20 Insurance Policy P20 Quiet Title/Discharge of Mortgage or Lien
C30 Specific Performance P30 Asset Forfeiture
c40 Collections P90 All other
C50 Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage
C60 Uniform Limited Liability Company Act -C.G.S. 34-243
cw All other Torts (Other Toz Defective Premises - Private - Snow or Ice

Eminent E00 State Highway Condemnation
Redevelopment Condemnation
than Vehicular)
rT12
03
WW
Defective Premises - Private - Other
Defective Premises - Public - Snow or Ice
Defective Premises - Public - Other
Domain E10
E20 Other State or Municipal Agencies 720 Products Liability - Other than Vehicular
E30 Public Utilities & Gas Transmission Companies 128 Malpractice - Medical
E90 All other 129 Malpractice - Legal
T30 Malpractice - All other
H10 Housing - Retum of Security Deposit T40 Assault and Battery
Housing
T50 Defamation
H12 Housing - Rent andfor Damages Té1 Animals - Dog
H40 Housing - Housing - Audita Querela/Injunetion T69 Animals - Other
H50 Housing - Administrative Appeal
H 60 Housing - Municipal Enforcement 170 False Arrest
H 90 Housing- All Other ™m Fire Damage
T90 All other
Miscellaneous M00 Injunction
M10 Receivership Vehicular Torts vor Motor Vehicles® - Driver and/or Passenger(s) va. Driver(s)
M15 Receivership for AbandoneWBlighted Property vO04 Motor Vehicles” - Pedestrian vs. Driver
M20 Mandamus V05 Motor Vehicles* Property Damage only
M30 Habeas Corpus (extradition, release from Penal Institution) vos Motor Vehicle* - Products Liability including Warranty
M40 Arbitration voo Motor Vehicle* - All other
M50 Declaratory Judgment vi10 Boats
M63 Bar Discipline v20 Airplanes
M66 Department of Labor Unemployment Compensation v30 Railroads
Enforcement vo Snowmobiles
M68 Bar Discipline - Inactive Status. v90 All other
M70 Municipal Ordinance and Regulation Enforcement ‘Motor Vehicles include cars, trucks,
motorcycles, and motor scooters.
M80 Foreign Civil Judgments - C.G.S. 52-604 & C.G.S. 50a-30
M83 ‘Small Claims Transfer to Regular Docket Wills, Estates W110 Construction of Wills and Trusts:
M4 Foreign Protective Order and Trusts ws0 All other
M88 CHRO Action in the Public Interest - PA. 19-83
Mg0 All other

Page 2 of 2
RETURN DATE: JULY 16, 2024 SUPERIOR COURT

U-HAUL CO. OF CONNECTICUT, J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
U-HAUL CO. OF ARIZONA, REPWEST
INSURANCE COMPANY.
AT BRIDGEPORT
Plaintiffs,
V.

NAYELI JUAREZ, NICOLE CUPAK, JUNE 4, 2024
CLINTON COX, ASHAN COX.

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

NOW COME Plaintiffs, U-Haul Co. of Connecticut (“UHCT”), U-Haul Co. of Arizona

(“UHAZ”), and Repwest Insurance Company (“Repwest”) (herein after may be collectively

referred to as “Plaintiffs”), through undersigned counsel, CHARLES T. GURA, ESQ. and

MARSHALL DENNEHEY, against the Defendants below, who knowingly, willfully, and

intentionally, conspired and agreed to a course of action to defraud Plaintiffs through an illegal

scheme in which they leased a rental truck and intentionally crashed it into a target vehicle in order

to make unlawful and fraudulent insurance claims, hereby brings forth its cause for Declaratory

Judgment and for supplemental legal and equitable relief as follows:

PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

1 UHCT is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of

Connecticut with its principal place of business in the State of Connecticut. UHCT is engaged in

the business of leasing rental trucks (“Moving Equipment’) to Connecticut consumers. UHCT

leases Moving Equipment at affordable rates to do-it-yourself movers in Connecticut.
2 UHCT coordinates the rental of Moving Equipment with an independent rental

center known as U-Haul Moving & Storage at Black Rock located at 3029 Fairfield Avenue,

Bridgeport, Connecticut 06605 (the “Rental Center”).

3 UHAZ is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of

Arizona, with its principal place of business in the State of Arizona. UHAZ is the ultimate owner

of the following vehicle: the 2012 Ford 15’ Econoline truck, bearing Arizona license plate

AES59107 (the “Rental Truck”), leased by Defendant Nayeli Juarez.

4 Repwest Insurance Company (“Repwest”) is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Arizona, with its principal place of business in the State of Arizona.

Repwest issues a policy providing the minimum financial responsibility (“MFR”) to lessees of

U-Haul rental vehicles in Connecticut.

B Named Defendants

5 NAYELI JUAREZ (“Juarez”) is an adult and is believed to be a resident at 413

West Main Street, Stamford, Connecticut 06902.

6. NICOLE CUPAK (“Cupak”) is an adult and is believed to be a resident at 1816

West Iron Gun Place, Citrus Springs, Florida 34434.
7
CLINTON COX (“C. Cox”) is an adult and is believed to be a resident at 430

Wilmont Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06607.

8 ASHAN COX (“A. Cox”) is an adult and is believed to be a resident at 132 Locust

Street, Unit 12, Waterbury, Connecticut 06704.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

9 This Court has jurisdiction as this is an action for Declaratory Judgment as to rights,
duties and obligations of the parties, pertaining to claims pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes

§ 52-29.

10. Venue is appropriate in this Court in that the Defendants are subject to personal

jurisdiction within this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this

action occurred within this District.

11. Here, the Plaintiffs assert that a controversy concerning contracts governing the

Plaintiffs and Defendants exists. Further, the interest amongst these parties is adverse. The

Plaintiffs and Defendants have a cognizable interest in the contract governing the duties and

obligations of the parties, and demand has been made upon the Plaintiffs concerning these duties

and obligations, demonstrating that the controversy is ripe for judicial determination herein.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12. UHCT leases Moving Equipment at affordable rates to do-it-yourself movers in

Connecticut.

13. Repwest issues a policy for the minimum financial responsibility (“MFR”) limits

on rental contracts entered into by UHCT with its lessees.

14. The Rental Truck carried limited liability coverage in accordance with the state's

MER, which is in excess to any automobile insurance maintained by the lessee or driver.

15. UHCT’s lessee, Nayeli Juarez, executed rental contract #17494350 (the “Rental

Contract’) outlining these liability protections, and the parties’ obligations in the event of a loss.

See Exhibit “A” attached hereto.

16. These relevant sections provide: See Exhibit “B” attached hereto:

Customer represents and warrants that the rental of this
EQUIPMENT is for the sole purpose of Do-It-Yourself moving.
Customer agrees that rental of the EQUIPMENT with the intent to
use the EQUIPMENT for a purpose other than do-it-yourself moving
(or in a manner prohibited by this Agreement) may be construed as
fraudulent. Customer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
Company, its parents, affiliates, and employees, and each of them,
against any and all claims, lawsuits and damages (including
reasonable attorney fees) resulting from Customer’s and or any
Authorized Driver’s intentional or criminal acts or from any
Violation.

3. LIABILITY PROTECTION

An automobile liability insurance policy or a qualified self-insurance
arrangement provides the Authorized Driver with the minimum
limits required by the automobile financial responsibility or
compulsory insurance law of the jurisdiction in which an accident
occurs. The protection provided by Company is excess or secondary
to any insurance coverage of the Customer and/or any Authorized
Driver. If the liability protection provided under this Agreement and
other insurance available to the Customer and/or any Authorized
Driver apply to a loss on the same basis, Company will pay only
Company’s share. Company’s share is the proportion that the limit of
protection provided under this Agreement bears to the total limit of
all coverage applicable to such loss. To the extent permitted by
applicable law, Company’s protection does not apply to bodily injury
(including death) or property damage to Customer and/or any
Authorized Driver or the Authorized Driver’s family members
related by blood, marriage or adoption who reside with the
Authorized Driver, or to any other person who reside with Customer
and/or any Authorized Driver.

Customer and any Authorized Driver understand that this
protection does not apply to: any intentional torts or criminal
acts; any false or fraudulent claims; any obligation assumed by
Customer and/or any Authorized Driver under any contract; any
fines, penalties, punitive damages or exemplary damages which
Customer and/or any Authorized Driver may become legally
obligated to pay; injury to or destruction of personal property
owned by or in the possession, custody or control of Customer,
any Authorized Driver or passengers; any liability of a driver
who is not an Authorized Driver and any liability for an accident
which occurs while Equipment is obtained or used in violation of
this Agreement. In the event that the liability protection is extended
by operation of law to anyone who is not an Authorized Driver, the
limits of protection shall be those minimum limits required by the
automobile financial responsibility or compulsory insurance laws of
the jurisdiction in which an accident occurs. This liability protection
will apply on the same basis as described previously in this section.
Customer and/or any Authorized Driver understand this protection
does not apply to any act or omission in Mexico. (Emphasis Added).

Any protection provided in this section is limited to the duration of
the rental as set forth in the individual U-Haul Equipment Contract
entered into by Customer or as extended by Company. Customer
agrees to indemnify and hold Company, its agents, employees, parent
and affiliates harmless from and against any and all loss, liability,
claim, demand, cause of action, attorney’s fees and expense of any
kind (a “loss”) in excess of the limits stated herein or beyond the
scope of the protection provided for herein, if any, arising from the
use or possession of the Equipment by Customer or any Authorized
Driver, including but not limited to attorney’s fees incurred by the
Company to enforce any of its rights hereunder.

COMPANY RIGHT TO DEFEND

Company has no duty to defend lawsuits not covered by this liability
protection. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Company has
no duty to defend Customer and/or any Authorized Driver in any
claim or lawsuit arising out of any acts prohibited by this Agreement.

DUTY TO COOPERATE
In the event of an accident, Customer and any Authorized Driver is
required to provide notice ofthe accident as soon as possible. Notice
shall be provided to Repwest Insurance Company at
uhaulclaims.com or 1-800-528-7134.

Customer and any Authorized Driver also agrees to fully cooperate
with Company in investigating and/or defending any claim or
lawsuit. The failure to cooperate will void any protection provided
herein, subject to applicable law. In the event of an accident,
Customer and any Authorized Drivers agree to provide Company
with the name of their insurance company and also agree to fully
cooperate with Company in the presentation of claims, in any other
aspect of the claims process and report the accident to Customer and
any Authorized Driver’s insurance company. Customer and any
Authorized driver shall, as often as may reasonably be required,
present to any person designated by Company for an
examination under oath to assist in the investigation and timely
disposition of Customer’s claim(s), Authorized Driver’s claim(s),
and/or potential claim(s) of any third-party. The presentation of
the requested examination under oath is material to the decision
to enter into this Agreement and the failure to comply with this
provision may void any coverage hereunder. This section applies
to any protection provided or purchased under this Agreement.
(Emphasis Added).

I The Plan

17. UHCT and its affiliates’ nationwide presence, affordable rental rates, and

affordable insurance options have made it a target for accident staging and insurance fraud. Fora

relatively low rental price, the criminal participants gain access to a vehicle that has no ownership

or accident history tied to it. In the criminal enterprise, the lessee is a co-conspirator who often

reserves or leases the rental truck paying cash, then drives the rental truck to a predestined location

where the other co-conspirators are waiting. The rental truck is then intentionally driven into the

target vehicle. The lessee reports the ‘accident’ to UHCT’s third-party claims handler, Repwest.

The target vehicle owner asserts a property damage claim, and the target vehicle occupants assert

personal injury protection (“PIP”) and bodily injury claims. Frequently, the lessee fails to report

the collision, does not respond to Plaintiffs’ communication attempts, and does not cooperate with

the investigation.

Il. The Rental

Factual Allegations Involving Juarez and Co-Conspirators Cupak, C. Cox, and A. Cox

18. On October 9, 2023, at approximately 8:25 P.M., Juarez leased the Rental Truck

from the Rental Center for the purpose of staging a collision with known associates Cupak, C.

Cox, and A. Cox, and for the purpose of presenting fraudulent claims.

19. On or about October 21, 2023, at approximately 11:16 P.M., Cupak, while

operating the Rental Truck, was traveling on Shelton Street in Bridgeport, Connecticut when the

Rental Truck collided with a 2014 Chevrolet Camaro (the ““Camaro”’), owned and operated by C.

Cox, and with A. Cox occupying the Camaro as a passenger.
lil. The Police Report

20. The Bridgeport Police Department was called to the scene of the loss and traffic

crash report case number #2300088179 (the “Report’’) was filed by Officer Joshua Walker, badge

#212651. The Report noted the date and time of the collision as October 21, 2023, at 11:16 P.M.

See Exhibit “C” attached hereto.

21. The Report indicated the collision occurred on Shelton Street, near the area of 137

Shelton Street, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and the posted speed limit was twenty-five (25) miles

per hour (“MPH”).

22. As noted on the Report, the Camaro was travelling westbound on Shelton Street,

while the Rental Truck was travelling eastbound on Shelton Street, in the opposing lane, traveling

in the opposite direction.

23. According to C. Cox, the driver of the Camaro, the Rental Truck passed his vehicle

and continued on its path of travel and struck the Camaro’s rear driver’s side quarter panel.

24. Cupak, the operator of the Rental Truck, stated she was travelling eastbound on

Shelton Street and attempted to maneuver past the Camaro despite there being little room for travel.

Cupak stated she passed the Camaro and was unaware of the collision.

25. Per the Report, the Rental Truck sustained “minor damage” to the rear cargo

section. The Camaro was reported as also sustaining “minor damage” to the rear driver’s side

quarter panel.

26. None of the involved parties reported injuries at the alleged accident scene.

27. The involved parties were able to drive away from the accident scene without

incident.

28. Cupak was issued a verbal warning for failure to maintain proper lane.
29. Juarez, the actual lessee of the Rental Truck, was not listed on the Report and was

not involved in the alleged incident.

Iv. The Investigation

30. Plaintiffs had the legal and contractual right to investigate the subject motor vehicle

collision, liability, causation, injuries, claims, and damages, and to determine if there was any

fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation.

A. Expired and Unauthorized Use of the Rental Truck

31. The Rental Truck was due to be returned to the Rental Center on October 10, 2023

for a one (1) day rental; however, the Rental Truck was not returned to UHCT’s custody until

October 26, 2023 after the alleged October 21, 2023 accident occurred.

32. On October 12, 2023, Plaintiffs notified Juarez by telephone call and text that the

Rental Truck was due for immediate return to the Rental Center.

33. On October 12, 2023, Juarez called Plaintiffs and advised that a person named

“Andrew” would return the Rental Truck and pay overdue rental charges in cash. The Rental Truck

was not returned on October 12, 2023.

34. On October 13, 2023, Plaintiffs continued to leave voicemail and text messages to

Juarez notifying her that the rental duration expired and immediate return of the Rental Truck was

due.

35. On October 13, 2023, Juarez called Plaintiffs requesting extension of the rental

period. Plaintiffs denied Juarez’s request for rental extension and again advised the Rental Truck

was due for immediate return. During the phone call, Juarez placed Plaintiffs’ representative on

hold and an unidentified male continued the conversation stating the Rental Truck could not be
returned because the truck needed to be unloaded and cleaned. Plaintiffs again advised that the

Rental Truck was due for immediate return.

36. From October 14, 2023 through October 18, 2023, Plaintiffs continued to notify

Juarez through voicemail and text that the rental period was expired and the Rental Truck was due

for immediate return. Juarez failed to return the Rental Truck during this time period.

37. On October 20, 2023, Plaintiffs deemed the Rental Truck stolen and initiated

field investigation and recovery process for the vehicle.

38. Investigation revealed the Rental Truck was seen driving in and out of the

commercial address located at 640 North Washington Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut.

39. On October 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs’ field investigator found and discovered the

Rental Truck in active use, with a fully loaded cargo area, filled with luggage bags and tires on the

comer of the Kossuth and Clarence Streets in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

40. The field investigator found the Rental Truck was not under Juarez’s custody but

was instead being used by an unknown unauthorized user. Plaintiffs’ field investigator advised

the unauthorized user they were contractually prohibited from using the Rental Truck and the truck

at that point was technically considered stolen property.

Al. The unauthorized user claimed he called U-Haul and made payment for use of the

Rental Truck, to which Plaintiffs have no record of.

42. Not wanting to escalate the situation and with the Rental Truck full of cargo items,

Plaintiffs’ field investigator was unable to recover the Rental Truck on October 23, 2023.

43. On October 24, 2023, Plaintiffs received a call from an individual claiming to be

Juarez’s “brother” complaining that Plaintiffs’ field investigator was not the police and improperly

attempted to retrieve the Rental Truck on October 23, 2023.
44. Plaintiffs’ representative advised Juarez’s “brother” that he was not an authorized

user and not the U-Haul lessee, and that Juarez had three (3) days to empty and return the Rental

Truck in order to avoid an estimated $2,000-$3,000 disposal fee.

45. On October 25, 2023, Juarez was notified that she had two (2) days to empty and

return the Rental Truck in order to avoid an estimated $2,000-$3,000 disposal fee.

46. On October 26, 2023, the Rental Truck was finally returned to the Plaintiffs.

47. Plaintiffs were first notified of an alleged accident involving the Rental Truck on

October 25, 2023 through the telephone call and incident report of Defendant C. Cox.

48. Plaintiffs later discovered the actual date of the alleged loss was October 21, 2023

after communication with C. Cox’s automobile insurance carrier, State Farm, and after receiving

a copy of the Police Report.

49. Plaintiffs’ initial attempts to contact the Rental Truck lessee, Juarez, after the

alleged loss were unsuccessful.

50. Over one month after the alleged loss occurred, on November 29, 2023, Plaintiffs

were finally able to contact Juarez.

S51. Juarez stated she rented the U-Haul to help her friend, a person named “Andrew,”

obtain and use the Rental Truck.

§2. Amazingly, Juarez insisted she did not know the last name of her friend “Andrew”

and could not provide Plaintiffs’ representative any additional identifying information regarding

the person named “Andrew.”

53. Juarez stated that after she secured rental of the Rental Truck, she was later

approached by an individual claiming to be a representative of U-Haul and was asked to turnover

the keys of the Rental Truck because the rental was overdue.
54. According to Juarez, she followed the instructions and gave the Rental Truck keys

to this individual claiming to be a U-Haul representative.

55. Juarez again could not provide any identifying information regarding the person

claiming to be a U-Haul representative.

56. From these facts, it is undisputed that Juarez allowed use of the Rental Truck to

unauthorized users who were not parties to the Rental Contract.

57. Juarez agreed to a one (1) day rental, and her expired and unauthorized use of the

Rental Truck continued for an additional seventeen (17) days until the vehicle was returned to the

Plaintiffs on October 26 2023.

58. During Juarez’s rental, from October 9, 2023 through October 26, 2023, the Rental

Truck accumulated 1,356 miles in additional mileage.

59. At the time of the alleged October 21, 2023 accident, Defendant Cupak, an

unauthorized user, was the driver of the Rental Truck.

60. It is undisputed that Cupak was not a party to the Rental Contact between the

Plaintiffs and Juarez.

B. Salvage/Branded Title and Inconsistent Vehicle Damage

61. Investigation on the 2014 Chevrolet Camaro (the “Camaro”), owned and operated

by Defendant C. Cox, was conducted due to the suspect circumstances surrounding the Rental

Truck and alleged October 21, 2023 loss.

62. Plaintiffs’ investigation through CARFAX revealed C. Cox acquired the Camaro

through branded title on October 11, 2023 only ten (10) days before the alleged October 21, 2023

loss occurred. See Exhibit “D” attached hereto.
63. Further investigation revealed that Salvage Title was issued to the Camaro on May

6, 2022.
64. On March 18, 2022, the Camaro was involved in an accident and was determined

a total loss.

65. Additional investigation of Camaro revealed prior damage claims on April 19,

2021, March 18, 2022, and May 24, 22 (salvage claim).

66. The Camaro’s significant prior accident and title history suggests pre-existing

and/or hidden damage to the vehicle that is unrelated to the alleged October 21, 2023 accident

involving the Rental Truck.

67. Photographs of the Camaro, taken after the alleged October 21, 2023 incident, show

damage to the rear quarter panel above the left rear wheel. See Exhibit “E” attached hereto.

68. Photographs of Rental Truck show no visible damage to the rear quarter panel

where, according to the Police Report, the impact with the Camaro occurred. See Exhibit “F”

attached hereto.

69. Plaintiffs’ investigator reviewed the photographs and Police Report and determined

the damage to the Camaro was inconsistent with the description of the alleged October 21, 2023

loss.

70. In addition, there is an significant area of concern regarding the Airbag Control

Module (“ACM”) report from the Rental Truck.

71. The ACM is a device that monitors sensors throughout the Rental Truck to

determine whether or not to deploy the airbags in the event of a collision.
72. The minimum requirement to engage the ACM is a change in velocity of five (5)

MPH. If there is a collision that “wakes up” the module, it will save the five (5) seconds of data

prior to the impact.

23. In the present case, the ACM did not record an event indicating the collision was at

such a low speed or the Delta-V did not reach the five (5) MPH minimum threshold to wake up

the module and begin recording data.

74. This indicates there would have been very little energy transferred and resulted in

very little damage to either vehicle, if any at all.

C. Claims History

75. Prior insurance claims investigation for Defendant Juarez revealed prior losses for

property damage-motor vehicle accidents (April 26, 2022 and June 11, 2022).

76. Prior insurance claims investigation for Defendant Cupak revealed prior losses for

bodily injury-motor vehicle accident (November 30, 2019 and June 29, 2004); workers’

compensation injury claims (May 1, 2003 and September 6, 2008); and homeowners injury claim

(December 18, 2006).

77. In addition, Defendant Cupak has significant criminal history. Specifically,

criminal history for Cupak includes: Attempt to Obtain Controlled Substance by Fraud (June 21,

2010); Check Fraud (July 19, 2021 and November 4, 2011); Operation of Motor Vehicle with

Suspended License (June 24, 2012); Obtaining Controlled Substance by Fraud (February 22,

2013); and Disorderly Conduct/Intoxication (September 8, 2017, May 12, 2018, June 8, 2018,

November 10, 2019 January 17, 2020, and April 24, 2020).

78. Defendant C. Cox has significant criminal history. Specifically, criminal history for

C. Cox includes: Resisting Arrest (July 20, 1995); Possession of Controlled Substance (July 20,
1995); Possession of Narcotics/Controlled Substance (July 24, 1997); and Operation of Motor

Vehicle with Suspended License (September 23, 1997 and October 22, 1998).

79. Prior insurance claims investigation for Defendant A. Cox revealed seven (7) prior

losses. Specifically, claims history for A. Cox includes: bodily injury-motor vehicle accident

(October 11, 2008, November 14, 2014, and March 19, 2020); property damage/total loss-motor

vehicle accident parked vehicle (April 6, 2020); property damage/total loss-reported stolen vehicle

(May 18, 2020); property damage/total loss-motor vehicle accident (April 21, 2023); and bodily

injury/property damage total loss — motor vehicle accident (July 6, 2023).

80. In addition, Defendant A. Cox has significant criminal history, including credit card

theft and identity fraud. Specifically, criminal history for A. Cox includes: Operating Motor

Vehicle without Insurance (March 1, 2017); Creating Public Disturbance (March 28, 2019); Credit

Card Fraud/Larceny (December 7, 2020); Criminal Impersonation/Identity Theft (December 7,

2020); Drug Possession (May 19, 2021); First Degree Larceny (November 10, 2021); Resisting

Arrest (November 10, 2021); Falsifying License Plate and Registration (July 20, 2022); and

Resisting Arrest (July 20, 2022).

81. Upon information and belief, Defendant Juarez was responsible for obtaining the

Rental Truck for unauthorized use and for intentionally allowing unauthorized users to perpetrate

fraud on the Plaintiffs and stage the alleged incident that occurred on October 21, 2023.

82. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cupak was an unauthorized driver of the

Rental Truck responsible for operating the vehicle to perpetrate fraud on the Plaintiffs and stage

the alleged incident that occurred on October 21, 2023.

83. Upon information and belief, Defendant C. Cox is claiming bodily injury and

property damage from the alleged October 21, 2023 incident.
84. Upon information and belief, Defendant A. Cox is claiming bodily injury from the

alleged October 21, 2023 incident.

85. As such, given these facts, the Defendants intentionally engaged in fraudulent

conduct for the expressed purpose of defrauding the Plaintiffs.

86. By way of evidence, there is nothing sudden nor accidental about the loss events of

October 21, 2023.

The Commonality between Defendants

87. Generally, in a staged motor vehicle fraud criminal enterprise, the co-conspirators

in the target vehicle “meet up” at a predetermined time and at a predetermined location. The lessee

then drives a rental truck to the predestined location where the other co-conspirators are waiting

in the target vehicle.

88. In a predetermined “staged” motor vehicle crash, a rental truck is then intentionally

driven into the target vehicle. The lessee then reports the loss to either the local U-Haul Rental

Company or Repwest. The target vehicle owner asserts a property damage claim, and the target

vehicle occupants assert bodily injury claims. Plaintiffs have a nationwide presence, user-friendly

interface, and affordable rates, which have made it a target for crash staging and insurance fraud.

For a nominal price, the criminal participants become beneficiaries of Plaintiffs through the

insurance on the lease of rental truck simply by participating in a pre-planned staged loss.

89. Plaintiffs allege that the factual circumstances, unusual details surrounding the

unauthorized use and users of the Rental Truck, and the Defendants’ significant prior claims and

criminal history, including fraud, are evidence that the “loss” of October 21, 2023, was staged.
90. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the intentional acts, the Defendants have made

material misrepresentations of fact and false and/or fraudulent statements in the reporting of the

alleged incident and presentation of claims.

91. Therefore, the Defendants are not entitled to any benefits from the liability coverage

provided by the Plaintiffs, and the Court should determine the Rental Contract to be void ab initio.

BASI

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 11, 2024

Case Filing Date

June 11, 2024

County

Parties

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

Document for U-HAUL CO. OF CONNECTICUT Et Al v. JUAREZ, NAYELI Et Al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties