Preview
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
5/19/2017 9:59:11 AM
017-292197-17 THOMAS A. WILDER
Cause No. __________________ DISTRICT CLERK
STATE FARM LLOYDS AS SUBROGEE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
JOSEPH AND MICHAEL BILLINGSLEY, §
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
§
INTERLINE BRANDS INC., LINX, LTD., §
WATTS PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES §
(TAIZHOU) CO. LTD. and §
WATTS REGULATOR CO., §
Defendants. § ____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, STATE FARM LLOYDS AS SUBROGEE OF JOSEPH AND
MICHAEL BILLINGSLEY (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and complains of
INTERLINE BRANDS INC., LINX, LTD, WATTS PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES
(TAIZHOU) CO. LTD., and WATTS REGULATOR CO. (collectively referred to as
“Defendants”), and for cause of action would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I. DISCOVERY
Discovery in this suit is intended to be conducted under Level Three of the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
II. PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff, as a real party in interest, is an insurance company doing business in the
State of Texas.
2. Defendant INTERLINE BRANDS INC. is a corporation doing business in the
State of Texas and may be duly served with citation by serving its registered agent,
Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporated, 211 E. 7th Street,
Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
3. Defendant LINX, LTD at all relevant times, has engaged in business in the State
of Texas, as more particularity described below. LINX does not maintain a place
of business in Texas and has no designated agent upon whom service of citation
may be made in this case. The causes of action arose from and are connected with
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 1
purposeful acts committed by LINX in Texas because LINX advertised, sold and
delivered the product in question in this case to distributors and entities in the State
of Texas. Accordingly, LINX may be cited by serving the Texas Secretary of State
under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, 17.044. A copy of the citation and
petition should be mailed by the Secretary of State to: LINX LTD., 875 Aquidneck
Avenue, Middletown, Rhode Island, 02842, by certified mail, return receipt
requested.
4. Defendant WATTS PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES (TAIZHOU) CO. LTD.,
is a foreign company doing business in China and may be served with process by
serving the Texas Secretary of State under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE,
17.044. A copy of the citation and original petition should be mailed by the
Secretary of State to: Mechanical & Electrical Industry Zone, Yuhuan County,
Zhejiang Province 317600, China. This Defendant has continuing and systematic
contacts with the State of Texas by placing its products into the stream of commerce
with the expectation that they would reach and be used in the State of Texas. The
causes of action set forth herein arise from such contacts.
5. Defendant WATTS REGULATOR CO. is a foreign corporation existing under
the laws of the State of Massachusetts. Watts Regulator Co. at all relevant times,
has engaged in the business in the State of Texas, as more particularity described
below. Accordingly, Watts Regulator Co. may be cited by serving the Texas
Secretary of State under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, 17.044. A copy of
the citation and petition should be mailed by the Secretary of State to: CT
Corporation, 155 Federal Street, Suite 700, Boston, MA 02110, by certified mail,
return receipt requested.
6. The “Property” is located at 3732 Somerset Lane, Fort Worth, Tarrant County,
Texas 76109-3555.
7. Venue of this suit is proper in Tarrant County, Texas, pursuant to Section 15.002
of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claims made herein occurred in Tarrant
County.
8. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they are companies authorized
to conduct business and/or conducting business in the State of Texas. The Court
has jurisdiction over the controversy because the damages sued for are within the
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
9. Plaintiff seeks only monetary relief of $100,000 or less, including damages of any
kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 2
III. PRODUCTS LIABILITY
This lawsuit involves products liability claims arising from the design, manufacturing,
and/or marketing defects of a DuraPro brand 16” inch toilet tank water supply line connector,
including the coupling nut incorporated therein (hereinafter referred to as “product”, “product in
question” or “water supply line in question”), which was designed, manufactured, distributed
and/or marketed by Defendants. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were engaged in the
business of designing, manufacturing, distributing and/or marketing the same model of water
supply line as the product in question to the general public, throughout the United States, as well
as within the State of Texas.
Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and/or placed into the stream of
commerce the water supply line in question which reached the home of Joseph and Michael
Billingsley in the same or substantially the same condition in which it was sold.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
At all relevant times herein, Joseph and Michael Billingsley were the owners of the
residence located at 3732 Somerset Lane, Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas 76109-3555 (the
“Property”).
On or about August 4, 2016, an uncontrolled release of water occurred in a bathroom
located at the Property. Among other things, the released water damaged and/or destroyed the
floors and walls at the Property. Further, the released water damaged/or destroyed a significant
amount of personal property contained within the Property, and made the Property uninhabitable
for a significant length of time.
Upon inspection, it was determined that the source of the water release was a DuraPro
brand 16” inch toilet tank water supply line connector, including the coupling nut incorporated
therein (hereinafter referred to as “product”, “product in question” or “water supply line in
question”), that was connected to a toilet in the bathroom where the water release originated. The
water supply line in question and its component parts were examined by an expert, who found
evidence that there was a design defect in the coupling nut on the water supply line in question.
Specifically, the expert determined that the coupling nut on the water supply line in question had
a transverse crack that was consistent with plastic creep and slow crack growth, the coupling nut
had fractured as a result of a design defect, and that the crack allowed the uncontrolled water
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 3
release that damaged the real and personal property of Joseph and Michael Billingsley. The water
supply line in question was designed, manufactured, distributed and/or marketed by Defendants.
As a direct, proximate and producing result of the failure of Defendants’ product, acts,
and/or omissions, Joseph and Michael Billingsley suffered damage to their real and personal
property. Pursuant to a homeowner’s insurance policy in effect for the date of loss, State Farm
Lloyds compensated Joseph and Michael Billingsley for the covered losses they incurred as a result
of the uncontrolled release of water. Plaintiff State Farm Lloyds as Subrogee of Joseph and
Michael Billingsley brings this lawsuit to recover its subrogation interest from Defendants.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
Count One -- Strict Liability
Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein.
The water supply line in question was defective and unsafe for its intended purpose at the
time it left Defendants’ control. Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should
have known, that the water supply line in question was defective and that it presented the
probability of harm to any foreseeable users unless it was free from defect. Therefore, Defendants
owed a duty to foreseeable users, and to Joseph and Michael Billingsley in particular, to inspect
the water supply line in question, to determine whether it would be reasonably fit for its intended
purposes, and to warn or give fair and adequate notice of the inherently dangerous condition that
existed as a result of the improper design and/or manufacture of the water supply line in question.
There was a design defect in the product in question at the time it left the possession of
Defendants that was a producing cause of the occurrence in question and damages set forth herein.
The design defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous as designed, taking into
consideration the utility of the product and the risk involved in its use. A safer alternative design
existed that would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of the occurrence in question
without substantially impairing the product’s utility and was economically and technically feasible
at the time the product left the control of Defendants, by the application of existing or reasonably
achievable scientific knowledge.
There was a defect in the marketing of the water supply line in question at the time it left
the possession of Defendants that was a producing cause of the occurrence in question and
damages set forth herein. Defendants failed to give adequate warnings of the product’s dangers
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 4
that were known, or by the application of reasonably developed human skill and foresight should
have been known, or failed to give adequate instructions to avoid such dangers, which failure
rendered the product unreasonably dangerous as marketed.
Plaintiff alleges that the damages incurred by Joseph and Michael Billingsley were a direct
and proximate result of the defective condition of the water supply line in question. Further, Joseph
and Michael Billingsley were not aware of any defects inherent in the water supply line in question
or of any danger that could result from the use thereof at the time anyone made use of the product
in its intended manner. Therefore, Plaintiff invokes the doctrine of strict liability in tort.
Count Two – Negligence
Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein.
Plaintiff would show that on the occasion in question, Defendants owed a duty to exercise
ordinary care in the design, preparation, manufacture, distribution and sale of its products. The
water supply line in question was defective and unsafe for its intended purpose at the time it left
Defendants’ control and at the time it was installed at the Property. The water supply line in
question was defective in that it failed to conform to the product design and specifications of other
similar products. Defendants breached its duty and, as a direct and proximate result of its
negligence, caused Joseph and Michael Billingsley to suffer damages.
Plaintiff would show that the negligent acts and/or omissions on the part of Defendants
were the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of
this Court.
Count Three -- Breach of Express and Implied Warranties
Defendants held out to the general public, and to Joseph and Michael
Billingsley specifically, that the water supply line in question would conform with the qualities of
the same or similar products. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Defendants breached an express
warranty as set forth in section 2.313 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.
Defendants held out to the general public, and to Joseph and Michael
Billingsley specifically, that the water supply line in question would be suitable for its ordinary
purpose and intended use, and that the product would be of merchantable quality. As a result of
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 5
Defendants’ actions, Defendants breached an implied warranty of merchantability and usage of
trade as set forth in section 2.314 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.
Plaintiff has suffered the damages set forth above as a result of Defendants’ breaches of
the foregoing warranties and pleads for recovery of all damages, both actual and consequential,
pursuant to the applicable sections of the Texas Business and Commerce Code and more
specifically, section 2.715(b)(2) of that Code.
VI. DAMAGES
As a result of the acts and omissions on the part of Defendants, Joseph and Michael
Billingsley sustained damage, including damage to their real and personal property, in the amount
of $78,767.18. Pursuant to an insurance policy in effect for the date of loss, State Farm Lloyds
(“State Farm”) compensated Joseph and Michael Billingsley for the covered damages they
sustained as a result of the failure of Defendants’ product, acts, and/or omissions. State Farm is
now exercising itsrights to contractual and equitable subrogation by filing this lawsuit against
Defendants. After allowing for all just and lawful offsets, payments, and credits, Defendants
continue to be indebted to Plaintiff in the total amount of $78,767.18. Plaintiff hereby asserts its
claim for damages as described above. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s recovery have been
performed or have occurred as required.
VII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Under the authority of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that
Defendants disclose, within fifty (50) days of the service of this petition and request, the
information or material described in Rule 194.2.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, STATE FARM LLOYDS AS
SUBROGEE OF JOSEPH AND MICHAEL BILLINGSLEY, requests that Defendants take
notice of the filing of this Original Petition, be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon
final hearing, Plaintiff recover from Defendants:
1. A judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for actual damages in the
amount of $78,767.18;
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 6
2. A judgment against Defendants for pre- and post-judgment interest as provided by
law;
3. A judgment against Defendants for all costs of court incurred by Plaintiff; and
4. A judgment against Defendants for such other and further relief, both general and
specific, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C.
By: /s/ Craig M. Schumacher
Craig M. Schumacher
State Bar No. 00791622
cschumacher@cstriallaw.com
N. Scott Carpenter
State Bar No. 00790428
scarpenter@cstriallaw.com
Parkway Centre IV
2701 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 570
Plano, Texas 75093
(972) 403-1133
Fax (972) 403-0311
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
STATE FARM LLOYDS AS SUBROGEE
OF JOSEPH AND MICHAEL BILLINGSLEY
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 7
Preview
FILED TARRANT COUNTY 5/19/2017 9:59:11 AM 017-292197-17 THOMAS A. WILDER Cause No. __________________ DISTRICT CLERK STATE FARM LLOYDS AS SUBROGEE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT JOSEPH AND MICHAEL BILLINGSLEY, § Plaintiff, § § vs. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS § INTERLINE BRANDS INC., LINX, LTD., § WATTS PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES § (TAIZHOU) CO. LTD. and § WATTS REGULATOR CO., § Defendants. § ____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, STATE FARM LLOYDS AS SUBROGEE OF JOSEPH AND MICHAEL BILLINGSLEY (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and complains of INTERLINE BRANDS INC., LINX, LTD, WATTS PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES (TAIZHOU) CO. LTD., and WATTS REGULATOR CO. (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and for cause of action would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. DISCOVERY Discovery in this suit is intended to be conducted under Level Three of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise ordered by the Court. II. PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff, as a real party in interest, is an insurance company doing business in the State of Texas. 2. Defendant INTERLINE BRANDS INC. is a corporation doing business in the State of Texas and may be duly served with citation by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporated, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701. 3. Defendant LINX, LTD at all relevant times, has engaged in business in the State of Texas, as more particularity described below. LINX does not maintain a place of business in Texas and has no designated agent upon whom service of citation may be made in this case. The causes of action arose from and are connected with PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 1 purposeful acts committed by LINX in Texas because LINX advertised, sold and delivered the product in question in this case to distributors and entities in the State of Texas. Accordingly, LINX may be cited by serving the Texas Secretary of State under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, 17.044. A copy of the citation and petition should be mailed by the Secretary of State to: LINX LTD., 875 Aquidneck Avenue, Middletown, Rhode Island, 02842, by certified mail, return receipt requested. 4. Defendant WATTS PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES (TAIZHOU) CO. LTD., is a foreign company doing business in China and may be served with process by serving the Texas Secretary of State under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, 17.044. A copy of the citation and original petition should be mailed by the Secretary of State to: Mechanical & Electrical Industry Zone, Yuhuan County, Zhejiang Province 317600, China. This Defendant has continuing and systematic contacts with the State of Texas by placing its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they would reach and be used in the State of Texas. The causes of action set forth herein arise from such contacts. 5. Defendant WATTS REGULATOR CO. is a foreign corporation existing under the laws of the State of Massachusetts. Watts Regulator Co. at all relevant times, has engaged in the business in the State of Texas, as more particularity described below. Accordingly, Watts Regulator Co. may be cited by serving the Texas Secretary of State under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, 17.044. A copy of the citation and petition should be mailed by the Secretary of State to: CT Corporation, 155 Federal Street, Suite 700, Boston, MA 02110, by certified mail, return receipt requested. 6. The “Property” is located at 3732 Somerset Lane, Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas 76109-3555. 7. Venue of this suit is proper in Tarrant County, Texas, pursuant to Section 15.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims made herein occurred in Tarrant County. 8. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they are companies authorized to conduct business and/or conducting business in the State of Texas. The Court has jurisdiction over the controversy because the damages sued for are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 9. Plaintiff seeks only monetary relief of $100,000 or less, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 2 III. PRODUCTS LIABILITY This lawsuit involves products liability claims arising from the design, manufacturing, and/or marketing defects of a DuraPro brand 16” inch toilet tank water supply line connector, including the coupling nut incorporated therein (hereinafter referred to as “product”, “product in question” or “water supply line in question”), which was designed, manufactured, distributed and/or marketed by Defendants. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing and/or marketing the same model of water supply line as the product in question to the general public, throughout the United States, as well as within the State of Texas. Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce the water supply line in question which reached the home of Joseph and Michael Billingsley in the same or substantially the same condition in which it was sold. IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND At all relevant times herein, Joseph and Michael Billingsley were the owners of the residence located at 3732 Somerset Lane, Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas 76109-3555 (the “Property”). On or about August 4, 2016, an uncontrolled release of water occurred in a bathroom located at the Property. Among other things, the released water damaged and/or destroyed the floors and walls at the Property. Further, the released water damaged/or destroyed a significant amount of personal property contained within the Property, and made the Property uninhabitable for a significant length of time. Upon inspection, it was determined that the source of the water release was a DuraPro brand 16” inch toilet tank water supply line connector, including the coupling nut incorporated therein (hereinafter referred to as “product”, “product in question” or “water supply line in question”), that was connected to a toilet in the bathroom where the water release originated. The water supply line in question and its component parts were examined by an expert, who found evidence that there was a design defect in the coupling nut on the water supply line in question. Specifically, the expert determined that the coupling nut on the water supply line in question had a transverse crack that was consistent with plastic creep and slow crack growth, the coupling nut had fractured as a result of a design defect, and that the crack allowed the uncontrolled water PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 3 release that damaged the real and personal property of Joseph and Michael Billingsley. The water supply line in question was designed, manufactured, distributed and/or marketed by Defendants. As a direct, proximate and producing result of the failure of Defendants’ product, acts, and/or omissions, Joseph and Michael Billingsley suffered damage to their real and personal property. Pursuant to a homeowner’s insurance policy in effect for the date of loss, State Farm Lloyds compensated Joseph and Michael Billingsley for the covered losses they incurred as a result of the uncontrolled release of water. Plaintiff State Farm Lloyds as Subrogee of Joseph and Michael Billingsley brings this lawsuit to recover its subrogation interest from Defendants. V. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS Count One -- Strict Liability Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein. The water supply line in question was defective and unsafe for its intended purpose at the time it left Defendants’ control. Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that the water supply line in question was defective and that it presented the probability of harm to any foreseeable users unless it was free from defect. Therefore, Defendants owed a duty to foreseeable users, and to Joseph and Michael Billingsley in particular, to inspect the water supply line in question, to determine whether it would be reasonably fit for its intended purposes, and to warn or give fair and adequate notice of the inherently dangerous condition that existed as a result of the improper design and/or manufacture of the water supply line in question. There was a design defect in the product in question at the time it left the possession of Defendants that was a producing cause of the occurrence in question and damages set forth herein. The design defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous as designed, taking into consideration the utility of the product and the risk involved in its use. A safer alternative design existed that would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of the occurrence in question without substantially impairing the product’s utility and was economically and technically feasible at the time the product left the control of Defendants, by the application of existing or reasonably achievable scientific knowledge. There was a defect in the marketing of the water supply line in question at the time it left the possession of Defendants that was a producing cause of the occurrence in question and damages set forth herein. Defendants failed to give adequate warnings of the product’s dangers PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 4 that were known, or by the application of reasonably developed human skill and foresight should have been known, or failed to give adequate instructions to avoid such dangers, which failure rendered the product unreasonably dangerous as marketed. Plaintiff alleges that the damages incurred by Joseph and Michael Billingsley were a direct and proximate result of the defective condition of the water supply line in question. Further, Joseph and Michael Billingsley were not aware of any defects inherent in the water supply line in question or of any danger that could result from the use thereof at the time anyone made use of the product in its intended manner. Therefore, Plaintiff invokes the doctrine of strict liability in tort. Count Two – Negligence Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff would show that on the occasion in question, Defendants owed a duty to exercise ordinary care in the design, preparation, manufacture, distribution and sale of its products. The water supply line in question was defective and unsafe for its intended purpose at the time it left Defendants’ control and at the time it was installed at the Property. The water supply line in question was defective in that it failed to conform to the product design and specifications of other similar products. Defendants breached its duty and, as a direct and proximate result of its negligence, caused Joseph and Michael Billingsley to suffer damages. Plaintiff would show that the negligent acts and/or omissions on the part of Defendants were the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Count Three -- Breach of Express and Implied Warranties Defendants held out to the general public, and to Joseph and Michael Billingsley specifically, that the water supply line in question would conform with the qualities of the same or similar products. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Defendants breached an express warranty as set forth in section 2.313 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Defendants held out to the general public, and to Joseph and Michael Billingsley specifically, that the water supply line in question would be suitable for its ordinary purpose and intended use, and that the product would be of merchantable quality. As a result of PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 5 Defendants’ actions, Defendants breached an implied warranty of merchantability and usage of trade as set forth in section 2.314 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Plaintiff has suffered the damages set forth above as a result of Defendants’ breaches of the foregoing warranties and pleads for recovery of all damages, both actual and consequential, pursuant to the applicable sections of the Texas Business and Commerce Code and more specifically, section 2.715(b)(2) of that Code. VI. DAMAGES As a result of the acts and omissions on the part of Defendants, Joseph and Michael Billingsley sustained damage, including damage to their real and personal property, in the amount of $78,767.18. Pursuant to an insurance policy in effect for the date of loss, State Farm Lloyds (“State Farm”) compensated Joseph and Michael Billingsley for the covered damages they sustained as a result of the failure of Defendants’ product, acts, and/or omissions. State Farm is now exercising itsrights to contractual and equitable subrogation by filing this lawsuit against Defendants. After allowing for all just and lawful offsets, payments, and credits, Defendants continue to be indebted to Plaintiff in the total amount of $78,767.18. Plaintiff hereby asserts its claim for damages as described above. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s recovery have been performed or have occurred as required. VII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Under the authority of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendants disclose, within fifty (50) days of the service of this petition and request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, STATE FARM LLOYDS AS SUBROGEE OF JOSEPH AND MICHAEL BILLINGSLEY, requests that Defendants take notice of the filing of this Original Petition, be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final hearing, Plaintiff recover from Defendants: 1. A judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for actual damages in the amount of $78,767.18; PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 6 2. A judgment against Defendants for pre- and post-judgment interest as provided by law; 3. A judgment against Defendants for all costs of court incurred by Plaintiff; and 4. A judgment against Defendants for such other and further relief, both general and specific, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C. By: /s/ Craig M. Schumacher Craig M. Schumacher State Bar No. 00791622 cschumacher@cstriallaw.com N. Scott Carpenter State Bar No. 00790428 scarpenter@cstriallaw.com Parkway Centre IV 2701 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 570 Plano, Texas 75093 (972) 403-1133 Fax (972) 403-0311 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF STATE FARM LLOYDS AS SUBROGEE OF JOSEPH AND MICHAEL BILLINGSLEY PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE – Page 7