UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GHULAM SARWAR d/b/a AR2S MGMT

INC. and AR2S MGMT INC.,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY

COMPANY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-0941-G

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the defendant General Star Indemnity Company’s

(“General Star”) motion to preclude attorney’s fees for the plaintiff. Defendant

General Star Indemnity Company’s Motion to Preclude Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion to

Preclude”) (docket entry 17). For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Ghulam Sarwar and ARS2S MGMT Inc. (collectively, “Sarwar”)*

 purchased

property insurance for his five-unit multifamily property from General Star, and on

* General Star contends that Sarwar is the only named insured on the

policy and that ARS2S MGMT Inc. does not have standing to bring this claim. 

Defendant General Star Indemnity Company’s Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint (“Answer”) (docket entry 13) ¶ 79. For the purposes of

this motion, the court refers to the party as “Sarwar” without reaching that issue.

Case 3:22-cv-00941-G Document 22 Filed 01/03/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID 300
April 28, 2020, a hailstorm allegedly damaged the insured property. Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (“Complaint”) (docket entry 9) ¶¶ 10-15. 

Sarwar submitted the claim to General Star, and the parties disputed the value of

Sarwar’s claim. Complaint ¶¶ 16-25; Answer ¶¶ 77, 79-80. In disputing the claim,

Sarwar hired Paradise Claims, LLC, (“Paradise Claims”) a public adjustment

company, to independently assess the damages to the property. See Complaint ¶ 17;

see also Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant General Star Indemnity

Company’s Motion to Preclude Attorneys’ Fees (“Exhibit A”) (docket entry 20-2). 

On May 25, 2021, Paradise Claims emailed General Star (hereafter, “the May 2021

email”), requesting an update on the claim on Sarwar’s behalf and complaining about

Hal Hoyt’s, a General Star claims adjuster, responses to the claim. See Exhibit A. 

The May 2021 email contained a damages estimate and intimated that General Star

was violating “Texas Claims Handing practices” by failing to provide updates on the

plaintiffs’ claims. Id.

On April 27, 2022, Sarwar filed this action against General Star for breach of

contract and breaches of its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff’s Original

Complaint and Jury Demand (docket entry 1) ¶¶ 46-66. Sarwar amended his

complaint on May 6, 2022. Complaint. General Star answered the amended

complaint on May 27, 2022. Answer.

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-00941-G Document 22 Filed 01/03/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID 301
On June 24, 2022, General Star filed the instant motion to preclude Sarwar

from recovering attorney’s fees. Motion to Preclude at 4-8. General Star contends

that Sarwar did not provide adequate pre-suit notice under Texas Insurance Code

section 542A.007(d), and therefore, Sarwar cannot recover attorney’s fees. Id. 

Sarwar responded to the motion on July 8, 2022, arguing that he provided sufficient

notice through the May 2021 email from Paradise Claims to General Star. Plaintiffs’

Response to Defendant General Star Indemnity Company’s Motion to Preclude

Attorneys’ Fees (“Response”) (docket entry 20) at 3-6. In the alternative, Sarwar

argues that notice would have been impracticable because the statute of limitations

would potentially expire April 28, 2022, the day after Sarwar filed this action. See id.

at 6-7. General Star filed its reply to Sarwar’s response on July 22, 2022. General

Star Indemnity Company’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Preclude

Attorneys’ Fees (“Reply”) (docket entry 21). The motion is now ripe for decision.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Texas Insurance Code section 542A.003 requires that “not later than the 61st

day before the date a claimant files an action to which this chapter applies in which

the claimant seeks damages from any person, the claimant must give written notice to

the person.” This notice includes:

(1) a statement of the acts or omissions giving rise to the

claim;

- 3 -

Case 3:22-cv-00941-G Document 22 Filed 01/03/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID 302
(2) the specific amount alleged to be owed by the insurer

on the claim for damage to or loss of covered property; and

(3) the amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees

incurred by the claimant, calculated by multiplying the

number of hours actually worked by the claimant's

attorney, as of the date the notice is given and as reflected

in contemporaneously kept time records, by an hourly rate

that is customary for similar legal services.

Tex. Ins. Code § 542A.003(b). Pre-suit notice can be furnished by the claimant or

his attorney or other representative, and under those circumstances, the attorney or

representative shall “provide a copy of the notice to the claimant” and “include in the

notice a statement that a copy of the notice was provided to the claimant.” TEX. INS.

CODE § 542A.003(c). But pre-suit notice is not required when “the claimant has

reasonable basis for believing there is insufficient time to give pre-suit notice before

the limitations period will expire” or the claim is asserted as a counterclaim. TEX.

INS. CODE § 542A.003(d).

If the claimant fails to provide sufficient notice under section 542.003(b), then

the court “may not award to the claimant any attorney’s fees incurred after the date

the defendant files the pleading with the court.” TEX. INS. CODE § 542A.007(d). A

party entitled to notice, but which did not receive such notice, must file a pleading

with the court within 30 days after the date the defendant files an original answer to

preclude attorney’s fees. Id.

- 4 -

Case 3:22-cv-00941-G Document 22 Filed 01/03/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID 303
B. Application

The parties do not dispute that General Star was entitled to pre-suit notice, so

the court will first address whether the May 2021 email provided General Star

adequate pre-suit notice under section 542A.003(b). Motion to Preclude at 4-5; see

Response at 2-4. General Star contends that the Paradise Claims email does not

meet any of the statute’s elements. Reply ¶ 7. For the first element, General Star

argues that the May 2021 email contains no details of the acts or omissions allegedly

giving rise to the claim. Id. Sarwar argues that referencing the “Texas Handling

practices” in the May 2021 email is sufficient pre-suit notice. Response at 4. The

court agrees with General Star that the email fails to satisfy the statute’s first

element.

Section 542A.003(b) requires a “statement of the acts or omissions giving rise

to the claim.” The May 2021 email provides the following:

We are following up on this file. We requested on site, the

inspection photos taken prior to binding coverage. I

requested these photos from Mr. Hoyt because as I exited

my car on site, Mr. Hoyt immediately attempted to place

the date of loss on a storm that was outside of your policy

period. I explained to Mr. Hoyt that if that is General

Star's position, then they would have to substantiate the

condition of the building prior to binding coverage. I also

advised Mr. Hoyt that if the building was in questionable

condition, it is the carrier's responsibility to provide

exclusions of coverage for those questionable conditions

upon binding the policy. From what I can see on the

policy, no such exclusions exists and none of the requested

photos have been provided to prove the condition of the

- 5 -

Case 3:22-cv-00941-G Document 22 Filed 01/03/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID 304
property prior to the date of loss. Additionally, we have

received no updates from your company on the status of

this file which I believe is in violation of the Texas Claims

Handling practices, which General Star is subject to. We

have also not received your engineer's report. Please find

attached, the estimate for the damages on site. Please

reach out to me so we can discuss.

Exhibit A. The email does not include the acts or omissions that give rise to the

claim. See id. As held in Perret, “[n]otice letters with specific factual allegations

supporting the causes of action, or at least enough information to imply those facts,

satisfy the notice requirement.” Perrett v. Allstate Insurance Company, 354 F. Supp. 3d

755, 758 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (citations omitted). Instead of “detailing how [the

insurer] allegedly breached the insurance contract and the duty of good faith,” id., the

May 2021 email does not provide any information about Sarwar’s claims, see Exhibit

A. The email at best implies that there is an insurance dispute, but does not provide

any information about the dispute, the policy, or how General Star was acting in bad

faith by denying the claim that would facilitate a settlement negociation. See id. 

Therefore, Sarwar did not provide adequate pre-suit notice under section

542A.003(b). Consequently, to recover attorney’s fees, Sarwar must show that presuit notice was impracticable.

Section 542A.003(d) does not require pre-suit notice when “the claimant has a

reasonable basis for believing there is insufficient time to give the presuit notice

before the limitations period will expire.” Other courts have concluded that

- 6 -

Case 3:22-cv-00941-G Document 22 Filed 01/03/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID 305
reasonable basis standard for impracticability is not an easy threshold to satisfy and

“ought to be reserved for those instances in which presuit notice genuinely cannot be

provided.” Hlavinka Equipment Company v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company,

546 F. Supp. 3d 534, 536 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (citations omitted). For this exception to

apply, the plaintiff must offer some “reason independent from simply stating that the

impending expiration of the limitations period made notice impracticable.” 

Hospitality Operations, LLC v. Amguard Insurance Company, No. 1:19-CV00482, 2019

WL 11690209, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2019).

Sarwar contends that he filed this action on April 27, 2022, to avoid the

expiring statute of limitations, and he argues that he should not be punished for

negotiating with General Star to avoid litigation. Response at 6-7. In turn, General

Star argues that Sarwar’s claim, if any, accrued on December 14, 2020, not on the

date of loss, April 28, 2020. Reply ¶¶ 10-11. Thus, General Star argues that Sarwar

filed his complaint well within the statute of limitations, and he had opportunity to

send pre-suit notice to General Star. Id.

Under Texas law, unfair settlement practices claims accrue on the date the

insurer denies coverage. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Knott, 128

S.W.3d 211, 221 (Tex. 2003). Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code provides a

two-year statute of limitations, but Texas law also has a generic four-year statute of

limitations for claims involving contractual obligations. See TEX. INS. CODE

- 7 -

Case 3:22-cv-00941-G Document 22 Filed 01/03/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID 306
§ 541.162; see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.004. If the court assumes

arguendo that the two-year statute of limitations applies, General Star first denied

Sarwar’s claim on December 14, 2020, Complaint ¶ 20, and thus, Sarwar had until

December 14, 2022, to file suit. Here, Sarwar filed this action on April 27, 2022,

nearly nine months before the limitations period would have expired. See Complaint. 

Therefore, it was not impracticable for Sarwar to provide pre-suit notice to General

Star.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, General Star’s motion is GRANTED. If

Sarwar recovers attorney’s fees in this action, the court may not grant attorney’s fees

“incurred after the date the defendant files the pleading with the court.” TEX. INS.

CODE § 542A.007(d). Thus, Sarwar is precluded from recovering attorney’s fees

incurred after June 24, 2022, the date General Star filed this motion.

SO ORDERED.

January 3, 2023.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 8 -

Case 3:22-cv-00941-G Document 22 Filed 01/03/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID 307