Preview
7/30/2019 11:47 AM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 35537228
2019-52049 / Court: 011 By: Trevor Robinson
Filed: 7/30/2019 11:47 AM
NO.
HENRY TAYLOR IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, _—___. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Vv.
OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
STATE FARM INSURANCE
COMPANY
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES HENRY TAYLOR hereinafter called Plaintiff, complaining of STATE
FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, hereinafter called Defendant, and for cause of action shows unto
the Court the following:
DISCOVERY LEVEL
1 Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $200,000 but not more than $250,000 and a demand for
judgment for all the other relief to which Plaintiff is lawfully entitled.
2 Discovery is intended to be conducted under Discovery Control Plan Level II, per Rule 190.3
of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
3 Plaintiff is an individual whose address is 4717 Vernon Street, Houston, Texas 77020.
4 Defendant, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY (“State Farm”), a foreign insurance
carrier, organized and existing under the laws of Illinois and authorized to conduct business in the
Page 1 of 11
State of Texas, may be served with due process herein by serving its registered agent Corporation
Service Company, in Travis County at 211 E. 7" Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Please issue a
citation for this defendant at this time. Service of said Defendant as described above can be
affected by personal delivery.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court.
This court has jurisdiction over the parties because Defendant is a Texas resident.
Venue in Harris County is proper in this cause under Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in this county.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Regarding Plaintiff's UIM Coverage: Prior to the time of the accident, Plaintiff secured
uninsured motorist/underinsured (““UIM”) motorist coverage in the amount of $30,000.
Plaintiff thereafter paid her premiums in a timely manner; and the policy remained valid at all
times relevant to the incident made basis of this lawsuit.
9 Regarding the Accident: On November 13, 2017, Mr. Taylor was injured in a vehicular
collision with Mr. Rony Beavers, who was operating a vehicle owned by Mr. Claude Beavers. Mr.
Taylor and Mr. Beavers were both traveling South on Highway 288 in Houston, Texas. As they both
continued South, Mr. Beavers, who was in the immediate left lane to our client, suddenly
experienced a tire blow out causing him to lose control of the Ford 350 plowing into the driver’s side
of Mr. Taylor’s vehicle. The vehicle’s collided with such extreme force causing Mr. Taylor’s body
violently jerked about the vehicle due to the inattention and carelessness of Mr. Beavers.
Page 2 of 11
10. As Mr. Beavers was driving his vehicle along the public roadways at the time of the
accident, he had a duty to exercise ordinary care in the operation of his vehicle. He
negligently breached his duties by:
A Failing to control the speed of his vehicle;
B Following too closely;
Failing to maintain an assured clear distance between his vehicle and the vehicle
operated by Plaintiff;
Failing to keep said vehicle under reasonable and proper control; and
Failing to obey the statutes and Texas Transportation Code of the State of Texas as
they pertain to the operation of a motor vehicle.
11 Mr. Beaver’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the collision, as well as the
bodily-injury damages Plaintiff suffered as a result of his involvement in the collision.
12 The Claim Process: Plaintiff thereafter attempted to perfect a liability insurance claim against
Mr. Beavers by and through Mr. Beaver’s liability insurance carrier. After confirming that
Mr. Beaver’s insurance coverage was insufficient to compensate Plaintiff, Plaintiff perfected
its UIM claim, eventually delivering to State Farm Insurance Company claims office a demand
package that contained a demand-for-payment in the amount of $30,000.00 to settle his UIM claim.
In response, State Farm Insurance Company did not offer monies/anything to settle his UIM claim
compelling Plaintiff to institute this lawsuit.
1 CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY:
BREACH OF CONTRACT
13. Pleading further, Plaintiff hereby incorporates the paragraphs above, and as grounds for his
Page 3 of 11
first claim against Defendant, State Farm Insurance Company, states that Defendant has materially
breached the terms of the contract it entered into with Plaintiff by failing to timely pay the claim
timely presented and fully documented by Plaintiff. As a proximate result of the material breach by
Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including the denial of benefits due to him under the
terms of the UIM policy, and suffered other consequential damages, including legal costs and,
expenses, such as having to hire counsel to enforce the contract, file suit, and incur court costs and
litigation expenses, including attorneys’ fees for which he seeks damages.
2™ CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY:
UNFAIR SETTLEM. PRACTICES
14. Pleading further, Plaintiff hereby incorporates the paragraphs above and in support of his
second claim against State Farm Insurance Company would show that Defendant’s conduct is
actionable under Texas Insurance Code § 541.060(a)(2)(A) and (7). Plaintiff would show that
Defendant State Farm Insurance Company failed to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair,
and equitable settlement of a claim with respect to which the insurer’s liability has become
reasonably clear. On December 28, 2018, Plaintiff made a demand for the modest limits of his UIM
policy. In response to Plaintiff's demand, despite being provided all proper documentation,
Defendant responded with no settlement offer. Defendant’s failure to offer constitutes a failure to
attempt in good faith to settle its insured’s claim fairly and equitably.
15. Plaintiff would further show that Defendant has refused to pay claim without conducting a
reasonable investigation with respect to the claim. Once Plaintiff provided Defendant with all
documentation necessary to evaluate Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Section 542.055 of the Texas
Insurance Code, Defendant arbitrarily made no settlement offer without conducting a proper
Page 4 of 11
investigation into Plaintiff's claim.
VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
16. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant engaged in false, misleading, deceptive acts and practices,
as defined by the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Am 17.41
el. Seq., more specifically stated as follows:
17.46(b)(5): representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics,
ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has sponsorship,
approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he does not;
17.46(b)(7): representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or
grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model if they are of another;
17.46(b)(12): representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or
obligations which it does not have or involve.;
17.50(a)(2): breach of express or implied warranties; and
17.50(a)(3): that the acts or omissions complained of were unconscionable.
17. Plaintiff would further show that the STATE FARM INSURNCE COMPANY’S acts and
practices, which were the producing cause of Plaintiff’ s damages, were committed knowingly and
intentionally. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY’ S fraudulent and deceptive conduct and the
resulting damage and loss to Plaintiff have necessitated Plaintiff's retention of the undersigned
attorney. Pursuant to Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. 17.50(d), Plaintiffis entitled to recover attorney’s
fee that are reasonable and necessary for the preparation and trial of this cause as well as reasonable
and necessary fees for appellate services expended in connection with this suit.
Page 5 of 11
BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
18. Prior to this action, Plaintiff notified STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY of his claim
under the underinsured motorist provision of the policy and all conditions precedent to obtaining
benefits had been met. Plaintiff provided STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY documentation
and information reasonably necessary for the evaluation of his claim. Despite this, STATE FARM
INSURANCE COMPANY refused to pay the value of Plaintiffs claim.
19. Plaintiff would further show that STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY breached the
common law duty of good faith and fair dealing in the following respects:
a. by denying payments on the full value of Plaintiffs claims when there was no
reasonable basis for such denial; and
b by withholding payment of the claim when STATE FARM INSURANCE
COMPANY knew or should have known that there was no reasonable basis for doing so.
20. The evidence in this case establishes that STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY
breached their duty to act in good faith and fairly deal with Plaintiff in that STATE FARM
INSURANCE COMPANY has no reasonable basis for refusing to meet their obligations to pay
under the Underinsured Motorist protection. As a consequence, STATE FARM INSURANCE
COMPANY is liable for actual damages, punitive damages, and other relief as pled for in this
petition.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
21. The conduct of STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY in failing to properly investigate,
process, evaluate and engage in good faith settlement negotiations constitutes a conscious disregard
of the rights of the Plaintiff. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY was both grossly negligent
Page 6 of 11
and recklessly indifferent to Plaintiff’ s rights in refusing to pay the underinsured limits on his claims.
Indeed, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY’S actions and behavior are such for which the
laws allow the imposition of exemplary damages under the common law theories of the violation of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and as a result of the breach of STATE FARM INSURANCE
COMPANY’S fiduciary duty to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks exemplary damages from
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY.
MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD
22. Plaintiff alleges that the representations made by Defendant STATE FARM INSURANCE
COMPANY concerning coverage under her Underinsured Motorist coverage were
misrepresentations and constitute fraud in that the representations were material, were false when
made or were made recklessly and that Plaintiff relief on such representations and as a result suffered
injuries and damages.
DAMAGES
23. As a result of the negligent conduct of Mr. Beavers, Plaintiff has suffered severe and
permanent bodily injuries for which Defendant STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY is also
liable. Contractual damages, costs of court, and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.
24. Because of the nature and severity of the injuries Plaintiff sustained, he has suffered physical
pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and, in reasonable probability, will continue to suffer
physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment into the future.
25. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff have required medical treatment in the past and, in
reasonable probability, will require other and additional medical treatment in the future. Charges
incurred by Plaintiff for such medical treatment in the past and those which will in reasonable
Page 7 of 11
probability be incurred in the future have been and will be reasonable charges made necessary by the
incident in question.
26. Further, as a result of Defendant STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY’S illegal actions,
material breaches of the policy, refusal to honor its contractual obligations and violations of Texas
law, Defendant STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY is liable to pay the holder of the policy or
the beneficiary making the claim under the policy, in addition to the amount of the claim, interest on
the amount of the claim at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) a year as damages, for violating the
prompt payment statue.
27. Plaintiff suffered the following damages as a result of the incident made basis of this lawsuit:
A Reasonable medical care and expenses in the past. These expenses were
incurred by Plaintiff for the necessary care and treatment of the injuries
resulting from the accident complained of herein and such charges are
reasonable and were usual and customary charges for such services in Harris
County, Texas;
Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses which will in all
reasonable probability be incurred in the future;
Physical pain and suffering in the past;
Physical pain and suffering in the future;
Physical impairment in the past;
Physical impairment which, in all reasonable probability, will be suffered in
the future;
Loss of earnings in the past;
Loss of future earning capacity
Loss of Household Services in the past;
Loss of Household Services in the future;
Page 8 of 11
Loss of Consortium;
Disfigurement in the past;
Disfigurement in the future;
Mental anguish in the past;
Mental anguish in the future;
Cost of medical monitoring and prevention in the future;
Actual damages, general damages, and special damages;
Future medical expenses between of trial and the date the Plaintiff reaches
majority and future medical expenses after the Plaintiff reaches majority;
NOTICE LETTER
28. Pursuant to the applicable code sections, Plaintiff has sent the required notice for the
causes mentioned at least sixty days before the filing of this suit.
RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND & SUPPLEMENT
29. These allegations against Defendant are made acknowledging that investigation and
discovery, although undertaken, are continuing in this matter. As further investigation and discovery
are conducted, additional facts will surely be uncovered that may and probably will necessitate
further, additional, and/or different allegations, including the potential of adding parties to and/or
dismissing parties from the case. The right to do is, under Texas law, expressly reserved.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO DEFEDANT
30. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant is requested to
disclose within fifty days as set forth in Rule 194.3 the information or material described in Rule
Page 9 of 11
194.2(a) - 194.2(1).
PRE-JUDGEMENT INTEREST
31. Plaintiff would additionally say and show that he is entitled to recovery of pre-judgement
interest in accordance with law and equity as part of his damages herein, and Plaintiff here and now
sues for recovery of pre-judgement interest as provided by law and equity under the applicable
provisions of the laws of the State of Texas.
JURY DEMAND
32. Pursuant to Rule 216 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial
by jury and the appropriate fee has been previously tendered.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, prays that Defendant be cited to
appear and answer herein, and that upon final trial, Plaintiff recover actual damages as specified
above from Defendant, plus costs of Court, pre-judgement and post-judgement interest at the legal
rate, attorney’s fees, and have such other and further relief, general and special, at law and in equity,
to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled under the facts and circumstances. Plaintiff would further
pray to recover three times the amount of actual damages upon a finding by the trier of fact that
Defendant knowingly committed the acts complained of herein pursuant to Section 541.152(b) of the
Texas Insurance Code. Plaintiff would also pray for interest on the amount of the claim at a rate of
eighteen percent (18%) a year as damages, together with reasonable attorney’s fees per Section
542.060 of the Texas Insurance Code. Plaintiff would also pray for any such other and further relief,
general and special, at law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be entitled under the facts and
Page 10 of 11
circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
THE COX PRADIA LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
By:/s/JonathanKt. Cox
Jonathan H. Cox
Texas Bar No. 24007047
jhce@coxpradialaw.com
1415 North Loop West Ste. 305
Houston, Texas 77008
Tel. (713)739-0402
Fax. (713)752-2812
ATTORNEY FOR HENRY TAYLOR
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY
Page 11 of 11
Preview
7/30/2019 11:47 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 35537228 2019-52049 / Court: 011 By: Trevor Robinson Filed: 7/30/2019 11:47 AM NO. HENRY TAYLOR IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, _—___. JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES HENRY TAYLOR hereinafter called Plaintiff, complaining of STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, hereinafter called Defendant, and for cause of action shows unto the Court the following: DISCOVERY LEVEL 1 Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $200,000 but not more than $250,000 and a demand for judgment for all the other relief to which Plaintiff is lawfully entitled. 2 Discovery is intended to be conducted under Discovery Control Plan Level II, per Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. PARTIES AND SERVICE 3 Plaintiff is an individual whose address is 4717 Vernon Street, Houston, Texas 77020. 4 Defendant, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY (“State Farm”), a foreign insurance carrier, organized and existing under the laws of Illinois and authorized to conduct business in the Page 1 of 11 State of Texas, may be served with due process herein by serving its registered agent Corporation Service Company, in Travis County at 211 E. 7" Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Please issue a citation for this defendant at this time. Service of said Defendant as described above can be affected by personal delivery. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court. This court has jurisdiction over the parties because Defendant is a Texas resident. Venue in Harris County is proper in this cause under Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in this county. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Regarding Plaintiff's UIM Coverage: Prior to the time of the accident, Plaintiff secured uninsured motorist/underinsured (““UIM”) motorist coverage in the amount of $30,000. Plaintiff thereafter paid her premiums in a timely manner; and the policy remained valid at all times relevant to the incident made basis of this lawsuit. 9 Regarding the Accident: On November 13, 2017, Mr. Taylor was injured in a vehicular collision with Mr. Rony Beavers, who was operating a vehicle owned by Mr. Claude Beavers. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Beavers were both traveling South on Highway 288 in Houston, Texas. As they both continued South, Mr. Beavers, who was in the immediate left lane to our client, suddenly experienced a tire blow out causing him to lose control of the Ford 350 plowing into the driver’s side of Mr. Taylor’s vehicle. The vehicle’s collided with such extreme force causing Mr. Taylor’s body violently jerked about the vehicle due to the inattention and carelessness of Mr. Beavers. Page 2 of 11 10. As Mr. Beavers was driving his vehicle along the public roadways at the time of the accident, he had a duty to exercise ordinary care in the operation of his vehicle. He negligently breached his duties by: A Failing to control the speed of his vehicle; B Following too closely; Failing to maintain an assured clear distance between his vehicle and the vehicle operated by Plaintiff; Failing to keep said vehicle under reasonable and proper control; and Failing to obey the statutes and Texas Transportation Code of the State of Texas as they pertain to the operation of a motor vehicle. 11 Mr. Beaver’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the collision, as well as the bodily-injury damages Plaintiff suffered as a result of his involvement in the collision. 12 The Claim Process: Plaintiff thereafter attempted to perfect a liability insurance claim against Mr. Beavers by and through Mr. Beaver’s liability insurance carrier. After confirming that Mr. Beaver’s insurance coverage was insufficient to compensate Plaintiff, Plaintiff perfected its UIM claim, eventually delivering to State Farm Insurance Company claims office a demand package that contained a demand-for-payment in the amount of $30,000.00 to settle his UIM claim. In response, State Farm Insurance Company did not offer monies/anything to settle his UIM claim compelling Plaintiff to institute this lawsuit. 1 CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY: BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. Pleading further, Plaintiff hereby incorporates the paragraphs above, and as grounds for his Page 3 of 11 first claim against Defendant, State Farm Insurance Company, states that Defendant has materially breached the terms of the contract it entered into with Plaintiff by failing to timely pay the claim timely presented and fully documented by Plaintiff. As a proximate result of the material breach by Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including the denial of benefits due to him under the terms of the UIM policy, and suffered other consequential damages, including legal costs and, expenses, such as having to hire counsel to enforce the contract, file suit, and incur court costs and litigation expenses, including attorneys’ fees for which he seeks damages. 2™ CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY: UNFAIR SETTLEM. PRACTICES 14. Pleading further, Plaintiff hereby incorporates the paragraphs above and in support of his second claim against State Farm Insurance Company would show that Defendant’s conduct is actionable under Texas Insurance Code § 541.060(a)(2)(A) and (7). Plaintiff would show that Defendant State Farm Insurance Company failed to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim with respect to which the insurer’s liability has become reasonably clear. On December 28, 2018, Plaintiff made a demand for the modest limits of his UIM policy. In response to Plaintiff's demand, despite being provided all proper documentation, Defendant responded with no settlement offer. Defendant’s failure to offer constitutes a failure to attempt in good faith to settle its insured’s claim fairly and equitably. 15. Plaintiff would further show that Defendant has refused to pay claim without conducting a reasonable investigation with respect to the claim. Once Plaintiff provided Defendant with all documentation necessary to evaluate Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Section 542.055 of the Texas Insurance Code, Defendant arbitrarily made no settlement offer without conducting a proper Page 4 of 11 investigation into Plaintiff's claim. VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 16. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant engaged in false, misleading, deceptive acts and practices, as defined by the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Am 17.41 el. Seq., more specifically stated as follows: 17.46(b)(5): representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he does not; 17.46(b)(7): representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model if they are of another; 17.46(b)(12): representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve.; 17.50(a)(2): breach of express or implied warranties; and 17.50(a)(3): that the acts or omissions complained of were unconscionable. 17. Plaintiff would further show that the STATE FARM INSURNCE COMPANY’S acts and practices, which were the producing cause of Plaintiff’ s damages, were committed knowingly and intentionally. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY’ S fraudulent and deceptive conduct and the resulting damage and loss to Plaintiff have necessitated Plaintiff's retention of the undersigned attorney. Pursuant to Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. 17.50(d), Plaintiffis entitled to recover attorney’s fee that are reasonable and necessary for the preparation and trial of this cause as well as reasonable and necessary fees for appellate services expended in connection with this suit. Page 5 of 11 BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 18. Prior to this action, Plaintiff notified STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY of his claim under the underinsured motorist provision of the policy and all conditions precedent to obtaining benefits had been met. Plaintiff provided STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY documentation and information reasonably necessary for the evaluation of his claim. Despite this, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY refused to pay the value of Plaintiffs claim. 19. Plaintiff would further show that STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY breached the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing in the following respects: a. by denying payments on the full value of Plaintiffs claims when there was no reasonable basis for such denial; and b by withholding payment of the claim when STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY knew or should have known that there was no reasonable basis for doing so. 20. The evidence in this case establishes that STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY breached their duty to act in good faith and fairly deal with Plaintiff in that STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY has no reasonable basis for refusing to meet their obligations to pay under the Underinsured Motorist protection. As a consequence, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY is liable for actual damages, punitive damages, and other relief as pled for in this petition. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 21. The conduct of STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY in failing to properly investigate, process, evaluate and engage in good faith settlement negotiations constitutes a conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY was both grossly negligent Page 6 of 11 and recklessly indifferent to Plaintiff’ s rights in refusing to pay the underinsured limits on his claims. Indeed, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY’S actions and behavior are such for which the laws allow the imposition of exemplary damages under the common law theories of the violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and as a result of the breach of STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY’S fiduciary duty to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks exemplary damages from STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY. MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD 22. Plaintiff alleges that the representations made by Defendant STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY concerning coverage under her Underinsured Motorist coverage were misrepresentations and constitute fraud in that the representations were material, were false when made or were made recklessly and that Plaintiff relief on such representations and as a result suffered injuries and damages. DAMAGES 23. As a result of the negligent conduct of Mr. Beavers, Plaintiff has suffered severe and permanent bodily injuries for which Defendant STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY is also liable. Contractual damages, costs of court, and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. 24. Because of the nature and severity of the injuries Plaintiff sustained, he has suffered physical pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and, in reasonable probability, will continue to suffer physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment into the future. 25. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff have required medical treatment in the past and, in reasonable probability, will require other and additional medical treatment in the future. Charges incurred by Plaintiff for such medical treatment in the past and those which will in reasonable Page 7 of 11 probability be incurred in the future have been and will be reasonable charges made necessary by the incident in question. 26. Further, as a result of Defendant STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY’S illegal actions, material breaches of the policy, refusal to honor its contractual obligations and violations of Texas law, Defendant STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY is liable to pay the holder of the policy or the beneficiary making the claim under the policy, in addition to the amount of the claim, interest on the amount of the claim at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) a year as damages, for violating the prompt payment statue. 27. Plaintiff suffered the following damages as a result of the incident made basis of this lawsuit: A Reasonable medical care and expenses in the past. These expenses were incurred by Plaintiff for the necessary care and treatment of the injuries resulting from the accident complained of herein and such charges are reasonable and were usual and customary charges for such services in Harris County, Texas; Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses which will in all reasonable probability be incurred in the future; Physical pain and suffering in the past; Physical pain and suffering in the future; Physical impairment in the past; Physical impairment which, in all reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future; Loss of earnings in the past; Loss of future earning capacity Loss of Household Services in the past; Loss of Household Services in the future; Page 8 of 11 Loss of Consortium; Disfigurement in the past; Disfigurement in the future; Mental anguish in the past; Mental anguish in the future; Cost of medical monitoring and prevention in the future; Actual damages, general damages, and special damages; Future medical expenses between of trial and the date the Plaintiff reaches majority and future medical expenses after the Plaintiff reaches majority; NOTICE LETTER 28. Pursuant to the applicable code sections, Plaintiff has sent the required notice for the causes mentioned at least sixty days before the filing of this suit. RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND & SUPPLEMENT 29. These allegations against Defendant are made acknowledging that investigation and discovery, although undertaken, are continuing in this matter. As further investigation and discovery are conducted, additional facts will surely be uncovered that may and probably will necessitate further, additional, and/or different allegations, including the potential of adding parties to and/or dismissing parties from the case. The right to do is, under Texas law, expressly reserved. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO DEFEDANT 30. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant is requested to disclose within fifty days as set forth in Rule 194.3 the information or material described in Rule Page 9 of 11 194.2(a) - 194.2(1). PRE-JUDGEMENT INTEREST 31. Plaintiff would additionally say and show that he is entitled to recovery of pre-judgement interest in accordance with law and equity as part of his damages herein, and Plaintiff here and now sues for recovery of pre-judgement interest as provided by law and equity under the applicable provisions of the laws of the State of Texas. JURY DEMAND 32. Pursuant to Rule 216 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury and the appropriate fee has been previously tendered. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, prays that Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final trial, Plaintiff recover actual damages as specified above from Defendant, plus costs of Court, pre-judgement and post-judgement interest at the legal rate, attorney’s fees, and have such other and further relief, general and special, at law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled under the facts and circumstances. Plaintiff would further pray to recover three times the amount of actual damages upon a finding by the trier of fact that Defendant knowingly committed the acts complained of herein pursuant to Section 541.152(b) of the Texas Insurance Code. Plaintiff would also pray for interest on the amount of the claim at a rate of eighteen percent (18%) a year as damages, together with reasonable attorney’s fees per Section 542.060 of the Texas Insurance Code. Plaintiff would also pray for any such other and further relief, general and special, at law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be entitled under the facts and Page 10 of 11 circumstances. Respectfully submitted, THE COX PRADIA LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. By:/s/JonathanKt. Cox Jonathan H. Cox Texas Bar No. 24007047 jhce@coxpradialaw.com 1415 North Loop West Ste. 305 Houston, Texas 77008 Tel. (713)739-0402 Fax. (713)752-2812 ATTORNEY FOR HENRY TAYLOR PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY Page 11 of 11