EXHIBIT A-2 

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID 11
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 1 of 10

CAUSE NO. ______________________ 

GOLDMAN VISTA HOLDINGS LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

DBA KRYSTAL CLEAN CAR WASH § 

§ 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

v. § 

 § _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY § 

§ 

Defendant. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiff GOLDMAN VISTA HOLDINGS LLC DBA KRYSTAL CLEAN CAR WASH

(“Plaintiff”) files this Original Petition against Defendant OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE 

COMPANY (“Defendant” and “OHIO SECURITY”) and for causes of action would respectfully 

show the Court the following: 

I. DISCOVERY LEVEL

 1. Pursuant to Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff intends to 

conduct discovery under Level 3. 

II. VENUE

 2. Venue is appropriate in TARRANT County, Texas because all or part of the events

giving rise to the causes of action occurred in TARRANT County, Texas and the property which 

is the subject of this suit is located in TARRANT County, Texas. 

III. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff is a domestic limited liability company whose principal place of business 

is in Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas. 

236-332949-22

FILED

TARRANT COUNTY

4/7/2022 11:04 AM

THOMAS A. WILDER

DISTRICT CLERK

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID 12
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 2 of 10

4. Defendant OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY is in the business of 

insurance in the State of Texas. The insurance business done by OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE 

COMPANY in Texas includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• The making and issuing of contracts of insurance with Plaintiff;

• The taking or receiving of application for insurance, including Plaintiffs’

application for insurance;

• The receiving or collection of premiums, commissions, membership fees, 

assessments, dues or other consideration for any insurance or any part 

thereof, including any such consideration or payments from Plaintiff; and

• The issuance or delivery of contracts of insurance to residents of this state 

or a person authorized to do business in this state, including Plaintiff.

5. Defendant OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY is an insurance company 

doing business in the State of Texas licensed with the Texas Department of Insurance. 

Accordingly, Defendant may be served with process by serving its Registered Agent for Service:

Corporation Service Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218. Plaintiff

requests that citation be issued and that service be made by certified mail, return receipt 

requested.

IV. NATURE OF THE CASE; RELIEF SOUGHT

6. This is a first-party insurance case stemming from extensive damage to Plaintiff’s

property from a hail event in June 2019. Plaintiff seeks damages for breach of contract and 

violations of the Texas Insurance Code, including “knowing” violations. Plaintiff also seeks its

attorneys’ fees, compensatory damages, statutory penalties, exemplary damages, enhanced 

damages, costs of court and pre- and post-judgment interest. As required by Rule 47 of the Texas 

Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of over $250,000 but not more than 

$1,000,000.

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID 13
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 3 of 10

V. BACKGROUND FACTS

7. Plaintiff owns the property located at 955 Davis Blvd., Southlake, Texas 76092-

8227 (“the Property”). At all relevant times, the Property was covered by a policy of insurance, 

numbered BKS (20) 59 55 36 17, issued by OHIO SECURITY (“the Policy”). The Policy covered 

the Property against loss by wind, hail and water damage, among other perils.

8. As a consequence of a severe storm event on or about June 16, 2019, the Property 

sustained extensive hail damage. The damage is covered under the Policy issued by OHIO 

SECURITY.

9. Plaintiff gave timely notice to OHIO SECURITY. Plaintiff has performed all 

conditions precedent to its recovery under the Policy. Plaintiff faithfully paid all the premiums 

under the above-referenced Policy, and Plaintiff cooperated with OHIO SECURITY’s 

investigation of the claim.

10. OHIO SECURITY assigned the claim to adjusters to investigate, report on and 

adjust the loss. Plaintiff provided information to the adjusters as well as opportunities for the 

adjusters to inspect the property. However, upon information and belief, no Texas licensed 

insurance adjuster for OHIO SECURITY ever visited or inspected Plaintiff’s Property. Instead, 

OHIO SECURITY and its adjusters intentionally limited their investigation activities to review of 

prior loss history. The adjusters then hired an engineer they knew would provide them with cover 

for their pre-determined denial of Plaintiff’s claim.

11. Instead of hiring SDii Global Corporation to do an independent analysis of 

Plaintiff’s loss OHIO SECURITY hired SDii Global and its engineers to rubber stamp OHIO 

SECURITY’s basis for denying Plaintiff’s claim and to convince Plaintiff that its property

damages were caused by one or more hailstorms that occurred before the effective dates of the 

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID 14
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 4 of 10

Policy rather than the June 2019 hailstorm at issue. In doing so, Defendant and its adjusters failed 

to conduct a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff’s claim.

12. On or about July 10, 2020, SDii Global visited the Property and conducted visual 

observations of the property damage only, without obtaining any microscopic analysis and/or 

chemical testing of Plaintiff’s metal roof and without obtaining any samples of Plaintiff’s metal

roof for laboratory microscope analysis and/or other laboratory testing. Notwithstanding its limited 

and biased investigation, SDii Global provided OHIO SECURITY with a report dated July 23, 

2020 that concluded the “hailstone impacts occurred during storms dating back to at least June 

2019,” and that Plaintiff’s metal roof panels “exhibited numerous, widespread dents due to 

hailstone impacts.” SDii Global’s engineer offered the opinion that the damage to the metal roof 

panels are “non-structural cosmetic dents,” but the Policy does not contain a cosmetic exclusion 

for hail damage to metal roof surfaces. It matters not whether the damage from the June 16, 2019 

hailstorm was cosmetic or structural—the Policy provides coverage for direct physical loss caused 

by hail.

13. Nevertheless, OHIO SECURITY concluded its investigation on or about August 

19, 2020, adjusted Plaintiff’s claim and determined that Plaintiff was owed $0.00 for covered hailrelated damages to the Property. 

14. Only after OHIO SECURITY’s engineer concluded that hail from June 2019 

damaged Plaintiff’s Property did OHIO SECURITY and its adjusters seek “further analysis 

regarding when the hail damage occurred, hail damage present on the canvas canopies, and EIFS 

exterior,” and provided SDii Global with additional documentation concerning the prior loss for 

comparison. Then, at OHIO SECURITY’s request, SDii Global’s engineer issued a clarification 

letter on or about October 27, 2020 stating the hailstones that damaged Plaintiff’s property 

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID 15
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 5 of 10

occurred as far back as October 2013 and that no additional hailstorms resulting in dents, fractures 

or tears affected the property after March 24, 2019. This is the same engineer that, only three 

months before, concluded hailstone impacts damaged the Property consistent with Plaintiff’s date 

of loss that occurred during the effective policy period.

15. On October 30, 2020, OHIO SECURITY issued a letter in response to Plaintiff’s 

request for reconsideration and doubled down on its coverage decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim 

citing the SDii Global report and clarification letter as well as the prior loss history as it basis for 

denial. 

16. By denying Plaintiff’s claim, OHIO SECURITY forced Plaintiff to incur more than 

$14,500 in costs to complete its own investigation and independent inspection of the Property and 

analysis of the extent of damage caused by the storm in question. Plaintiff hired PMI Specialists, 

metallurgical engineers, and Michael Unger, a causation and damages building consultant to 

investigate its loss. Unger fully inspected the roof system, and PMI Specialist obtained samples of 

the roof for laboratory microscopic analysis and testing. PMI Specialist’s report and Unger’s cost 

of repairs estimate were provided to OHIO SECURITY on or about January 14, 2022. OHIO 

SECURITY has underpaid Plaintiff by approximately $285,215.43.

17. OHIO SECURITY wholly failed to estimate the cost of repair to the Property 

during the claims handling period.

18. OHIO SECURITY failed to conduct a full and fair and reasonable investigation of 

Plaintiff’s claim, including as to the full scope and extent of covered losses and damages of 

Plaintiff’s insured Property and as to the reasonable and necessary scopes of repairs of all such 

Property. OHIO SECURITY did this inadequate assessment despite plainly visible and extensive 

damage to the Property, thereby undervaluing the claim and drastically reducing OHIO 

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID 16
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 6 of 10

SECURITY’s exposure under the Policy and further violating the terms of the insurance Policy by 

failing to pay for the covered damage caused by the storm at issue. 

19. OHIO SECURITY failed to make an attempt to settle Plaintiff’s claim in a fair 

manner, although its liability to Plaintiff under the Policy is without dispute. This conduct is a 

violation of Section 541.060(a)(2)(A) of the Texas Insurance Code.

20. OHIO SECURITY refused to fully compensate Plaintiff under the terms of the 

Policy and failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. OHIO SECURITY and its adjusters 

performed an outcome-oriented investigation of Plaintiff’s claim which resulted in an unfair, 

biased and inequitable evaluation of Plaintiff’s losses. This conduct is a violation of Section 

541.060(a)(7) of the Texas Insurance Code.

21. OHIO SECURITY has failed and refused to pay Plaintiff in accordance with its 

promises under the Policy and has wrongfully underpaid Plaintiff’s claims for covered damages to 

the Property. In addition, OHIO SECURITY violated the Prompt Payment of Claims Act, Texas 

Ins. Code § 542.055 et. seq., and statutory prompt payment penalties should be calculated from 

the time Defendant issued its original claim decision letter in August 2020.

22. The amount of Plaintiff’s damages is well established and has been provided to 

Defendant. Plaintiff’s covered property damage has not been paid despite Plaintiff having 

performed all conditions precedent to recovery under the Policy.

23. OHIO SECURITY forced Plaintiff to file this suit by denying Plaintiff’s claim for

covered damages. Thus, Defendant failed to meet its obligation under the Policy regarding 

investigation and payment of the claim without delay. This conduct is in violation of Section 

542.058 of the Texas Insurance Code and Defendant is liable for damages as provided by Section 

542.060.

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID 17
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 7 of 10

VI. CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

24. Declaratory Judgment. Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs. Pursuant to 

the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the Policy provides

coverage for the cost to repair the damaged property, less only a deductible, among other things. 

In the alternative, Plaintiff asserts that the Policy is ambiguous and must be interpreted in favor of 

coverage and against OHIO SECURITY. 

25. Breach of Contract. Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs. The acts and 

omissions of OHIO SECURITY and its agents constitute a breach and/or anticipatory breach of

OHIO SECURITY’s contract with Plaintiff. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to the 

fulfillment of its contractual demands. The damage to Plaintiff’s Property occurred during the 

effective policy period and was covered under the Policy issued by Defendant, but Defendant 

failed to pay for all covered damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings an action for breach of contract 

against OHIO SECURITY pursuant to Texas statutory and common law, including Chapter 38 of 

the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and seeks all of its damages for such breach, 

including actual damages, consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, other 

litigation expenses and costs of court. 

26. Violations of the Texas Insurance Code. Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing 

paragraphs. At all pertinent times, OHIO SECURITY was engaged in the business of insurance as 

defined by the Texas Insurance Code and is therefore a “Person” as defined by Texas Insurance 

Code Section 541.002. The acts and omissions of OHIO SECURITY and its agents constitute one 

or more violations of the Texas Insurance Code. More specifically, OHIO SECURITY has, among 

other violations, violated the following provisions of the Code:

a. Texas Insurance Code, Chapter 542, Subchapter B, the Prompt Payment of Claims 

Act; and

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID 18
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 8 of 10

b. Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.060(a) by: 

• failing to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable 

settlement of a claim with respect to which their liability has become reasonably 

clear; and

• refusing to pay Plaintiff’s claim without conducting a reasonable investigation

of the claim.

27. As a result of the foregoing conduct, which was and is/are the producing cause(s) 

of injury and damage to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered damages including, without limitation, 

actual damages, economic damages, and consequential damages. Thus, pursuant to Texas 

Insurance Code Section 541.151, Plaintiff is entitled to bring this cause of action against Defendant 

for violations of Chapter 541.

28. Moreover, one or more of the foregoing acts or omissions were “knowingly” made, 

entitling Plaintiff to seek three times the amount of actual damages (treble damages) pursuant to 

Section 541.152.

29. OHIO SECURITY has also violated the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act. 

Plaintiff gave Defendant timely notice of the loss and allowed OHIO SECURITY to inspect the 

Property when requested by Defendant. Defendant completed its investigation on or about August 

19, 2020 when it denied Plaintiff’s claim for covered damages. Thus, statutory damages pursuant 

to Texas Insurance Code Section 542.051, et seq. began to accrue on or about August 19, 2020. 

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages as a penalty, plus reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees 

incurred as a result of these violations.

30. Attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs. Plaintiff has been 

required to engage the services of the undersigned attorneys and has agreed to pay its attorneys a 

reasonable fee for services expended and to be expended in the prosecution of its claims against 

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID 19
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 9 of 10

OHIO SECURITY through the trial court and all levels of the appellate process. Plaintiff seeks the 

recovery of all of its attorneys’ fees and expenses.

31. With respect to all causes of action asserted herein, Plaintiff seeks the recovery of 

prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

VII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

32. All conditions precedent for Plaintiff to recover under the Policy has been or will 

be met.

VIII. JURY DEMAND

33. Plaintiff requests that a jury be convened to try the factual issues in these causes of 

action and tender the appropriate fees.

IX. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

34. Plaintiff specifically reserves the right to bring additional causes of action against 

OHIO SECURITY and to amend this Petition as necessary.

X. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the following relief:

A. the Court’s declaration that the Policy provides coverage for the damage to the 

Property, less only a deductible; 

B. alternatively, a ruling that the Policy is ambiguous and must be interpreted in favor 

of coverage and in favor of Plaintiff;

C. damages against OHIO SECURITY for breach of contract, including actual 

damages, consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, other litigation 

expenses, enhanced damages, and costs of court; 

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID 20
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 10 of 10

D. damages against OHIO SECURITY for violations of the Texas Insurance Code, 

including, without limitation, economic damages, actual damages, treble damages, court costs, and 

reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees;

E. statutory damages, including the applicable percentage of damages penalty for 

violations of Texas’ Prompt Payment of Claims Act; and

F. any and all other financial relief and rulings to which Plaintiff may be entitled at 

law and/or as a matter of equity.

Respectfully submitted,

PEARSON LEGAL, P.C.

425 Soledad, Suite 600

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Telephone: (210) 732-7766

Facsimile: (210) 229-9277

BY:

MATTHEW R. PEARSON

State Bar No. 00788173

Email: mpearson@pearsonlegalpc.com

JARRYD S. MORTON

State Bar No. 24102248

Email: jmorton@pearsonlegalpc.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

GOLDMAN VISTA HOLDINGS LLC DBA 

KRYSTAL CLEAN CAR WASH

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID 21
Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system

on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing

certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a

certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Velma Owen on behalf of Matthew Pearson

Bar No. 00788173

vowen@pearsonlegalpc.com

Envelope ID: 63356562

Status as of 4/7/2022 11:23 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name

Matthew RPearson

Jarryd Morton

Velma L.Owen

BarNumber Email

mpearson@pearsonlegalpc.com

jmorton@pearsonlegalpc.com

vowen@pearsonlegalpc.com

TimestampSubmitted

4/7/2022 11:04:56 AM

4/7/2022 11:04:56 AM

4/7/2022 11:04:56 AM

Status

SENT

SENT

SENT

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-3 Filed 05/18/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID 22