EXHIBIT C

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID 16
	
	 
 	
	 	  		!"
 #$%&'()*+,-.&%/ #&01)2&1$3)456)78,9 :;<)=)>1$/?18)5? 5?'):@AA 5.8)#8?18+16)BC);DEA<FEEG< H	
I!I	
 )>'.?-'&)2J(&'K )=/'L$+'M)N18?&'&./ H
! #&018.$?)78/$&.8,')N1J3.8( =8?+?()7O)P$JQ'&))@G<<R;< H
!	
 
 5?.8?18)SST)U/9)#&018.$?)78/$&.8,')N1J3.8( V	W 5?.8?18)SST)U/9)#&018.$?)78/$&.8,')N1J3.8()X:EYR<Y@GZ 
[\!I N+?.?+18]T'?+?+18 	
 N18?&.,? "	^
! O.MM./)N1$8?()O+/?&+,?)N1$&?6)BC "_	
 ONFEEFAG@Y< `	
	
 B'a./ 	

"" AG]ED]EAEE 
b		II	
 :AcAA).J)d18%.()8'a?)e1MM1f+80)?-')'a3+&.?+18)1e)EA)%.(/).e?'&)/'&U+,' g	^
!	
g
 N5N hb	
 T'&/18.M)5'&U+,' 5'8%'&)78e1&J.?+18c i18+80)*$Q.&?/)SST E:YF;<:F;RAA 78e1&J.?+18),18?.+8'%)18)?-+/)?&.8/J+??.M)e1&J)+/)e1&)&',1&%)K''3+806)81?+e+,.?+18).8%)e1&f.&%+80)?-').??.,-'%)%1,$J'8?X/Z9)7?)%1'/)81? ,18/?+?$?').)M'0.M)13+8+189)B-')&',+3+'8?)+/)&'/318/+QM')e1&)+8?'&3&'?+80)?-')%1,$J'8?/).8%)?.K+80).33&13&+.?').,?+189 
I
!jI

!		I
"" E<:)S+??M')k.MM/)O&+U'6)l+MJ+80?186)O'M.f.&'):RDADF:G;Y)))XDDDZ)GRAFEDDE)))m)))/13n,/,0M1Q.M9,1J

\/J 

csc 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID 17
FORM NO. 353-3-CITATION 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

To: ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY 

SERVING REGISTERED AGENT CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY 

211 E 7TH ST STE 620 

AUSTIN TX 78701 

GREETINGS: 

You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file a written 

answer with the clerk who issued this citation by 10 o'clock a.m. of the Monday next following the 

expiration of twenty days after you were served this citation and petition, a default judgment may 

be taken against you. In addition to filing a written answer with the clerk, you may be required to 

make initial disclosures to the other parties of this suit. These disclosures generally must be made 

no later than 30 days after you file your answer with the clerk. Find out more at 

TexasLawHelp.org. Your answer should be addressed to the clerk of the 101st District Court at 

600 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75202. 

Said Plaintiff being STANTON LLP 

Filed in said Court 10th day of June, 2022 against 

ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY 

For Suit, said suit being numbered DC-22-06345, the nature of which demand is as follows: 

Suit on INSURANCE etc. as shown on said petition, a copy of which accompanies 

this citation. If this citation is not served, it shall be returned unexecuted. 

WITNESS: FELICIA PITRE, Clerk of the District Courts of Dallas, County Texas. 

Given under my hand and the Seal of said Court at office on this the 24th day of June, 2022 

ATTEST: FELICIA PITRE, 

Clerk of the District Courts of Dallas County, Texas 

By ~vlf~,Deputy 

KARI MALONE 

ESERVE 

CITATION 

No.: DC-22-06345 

STANTONLLP 

vs. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY 

- ISSUED 

on this the 24th day of June, 2022 

FELICIA PITRE 

Clerk District Courts, 

Dallas County, Texas 

By: KARI MALONE, Deputy 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

BOBBY M RUBARTS 

KONING RUBARTS LLP 

1700 PACIFIC A VENUE STE 4500 

DALLAS TX 75201 

214-751-7900 x7902 

bobby.rubarts@koningrubarts.com 

DALLAS COUNTY 

SERVJCE FEES 

NOT PAID 

Delivered on: l 

~_i _z,_~_jlill n. - VS ?SC#}.Z.'1.7 oV--=-

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID 18
OFFICER'S RETURN 

Cause No. DC-22-06345 

Court No.: 101st District Court 

Style: STANTON LLP 

vs. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY 

Came to hand on the _________ day of ____________ , 20 ____ , at _____ o'clock ____ .M. 

Executed at , within the County of ----------------------- at 

o'clock .M. on the day of , 20 ----- --- ------- ------------------ -------

by delivering to the within named 

each, in person, a tme copy of this Citation together with the accompanying copy of this pleading, having first endorsed on same date of 

delivery. The distance actually traveled by me in serving such process was _____ miles and my fees are as follows: To certify which 

witness my hand. 

For serving Citation $ ____ _ 

For mileage $ ____ _ of ________ County, ________ _ 

For Notary $ ____ _ By _________________ Deputy 

(Must be verified if served outside the State of Texas.) 

Signed and sworn to by the said _______________ before me this ___ day of ___________ _ 

20 ___ , to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. 

Notary Public County ----- -----

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID 19
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. 

Envelope ID: 65749206 

Status as of 6/24/2022 11 :02 AM CST 

Case Contacts 

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted 

Bobby MarkRubarts bobby.rubarts@koningrubarts.com 6/24/2022 11 :02: 12 AM 

Status 

SENT 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID 20
1 CIT- ESERVE 

DC-22-06345 

CAUSE NO. -------

FILED 

6/10/2022 3:36 PM 

FELICIA PITRE 

DISTRICT CLERK 

DALLAS CO., TEXAS 

JAVIER HERNANDEZ DEPUTY 

STANTONLLP § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN DISTRICT COURT OF 

Plaintiff, 

v. DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS 

ARGONAUT INSURNACE 

COMPANY 

Defendant. 

101st 

---

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

Plaintiff Stanton LLP ("Stanton" or "Plaintiff') complains of Defendant Argonaut 

Insurance Company ("Argonaut," "Defendant," or the "Insurer") for the following reasons: 

I. DISCOVERY LEVEL 

1. Discovery will be conducted under Level 3 of Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

II. THE PARTIES 

2. Stanton is a domestic limited liability partnership with its principal place of 

business in Dallas County, Texas. 

3. Argonaut's principal place of business is in San Antonio, Texas and is therefore 

considered a citizen of this State. It may be served with process by serving its registered agent as 

follows: Corporation Service Company, 211 E. 7th St., Ste. 620, Austin, TX 78701. 

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE AND RULE 47 STATEMENT 

4. This Court has jurisdiction of this dispute because the amount in controversy 

exceeds its minimum jurisdictional limits. 

5. Among other reasons, venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas pursuant, to Tex. 

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.002 because all or a part of the causes of action accrued here. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page I of9 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID 21
6. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks 

monetary relief over $250,000 but not more than $1,000,000.00 currently; however, its damages 

continue to accrue daily. 

IV. BACKGROUND 

A. Stanton's Reputation for Excellence and its Unwavering Commitment to its Clients7. Stanton is one of the preeminent corporate litigation law firms in the State of 

Texas. Stanton focuses on its clients' businesses and crafts litigation strategies in alignment with 

its clients' corporate values and objectives. Stanton's agility, creativity, and velocity have 

earned it a reputation for rescuing difficult cases and delivering results. Stanton's bedrock, core 

values include its commitment to fulfilling its fiduciary duties to its clients, including preserving 

the attorney-client privilege and protecting its clients' confidential information, without regard to 

any hardship such an unwavering commitment may cause the firm. 

B. The Argonaut Insurance Policy, the Improper Demand, and Stanton's Notice of a 

Potential Claim8. In October 2019, glendonTodd Capital, LLC ("GTC") improperly demanded that 

Stanton violate its confidentiality obligations to its clients or face a lawsuit (the "Potential 

Claim"). Consistent with its values, Stanton put its clients' interests first and rejected GTC's 

demand. 

9. Effective March 18, 2019 through March 18, 2020, Argonaut had agreed to 

provide Stanton with professional liability coverage in accordance with the terms of Policy No. 

121 LPL 0000414-01 (the "Policy"). According to the tenns of the Policy, Stanton provided 

written notice of the Potential Claim to Argonaut. Argonaut acknowledged receipt of the notice 

on October 21, 2019. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 2 of 9 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID 22
C. GTC's Lawsuit and Stanton's Request for a Defense-

! 0. On April 13, 2020, the Potential Claim became a claim under the Policy when 

GTC filed a lawsuit against Stanton in the 160th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (the 

"Lawsuit"). Stanton timely and properly notified Argonaut of the Lawsuit, provided it with a 

copy of the petition, and requested a defense (the "Insurance Claim"). According to the terms of 

the Policy and applicable law, among other duties, Argonaut owed Stanton the duty to defend it 

in the Lawsuit. 

11. Argonaut represented to Stanton that it was commencmg an appropriate 

investigation but did not timely appoint counsel to defend Stanton prior to the date by which 

Stanton was required to file an answer in the Lawsuit. Accordingly, Stanton had no alternative 

other than to retain cotmsel itself to defend it. Stanton prudently chose Lynn Pinker, which 

clearly was qualified and competent defense counsel, perfectly suitable to defend the Lawsuit. 

D. Argonaut's Unlawful Adjustment of the Insurance Claim12. From April 2020 through October 2020, Argonaut communicated with Stanton on 

numerous occasions, claiming that it was continuing to conduct an appropriate investigation 

under the Policy and applicable law. Stanton trusted that Argonaut would eventually complete 

its investigation and provide a defense as required by the Policy. Argonaut was aware that Lynn 

Pinker was defending Stanton in the Lawsuit and never objected to or questioned the 

representation. During this time, Stanton incurred substantial out-of-pocket defense costs in the 

Lawsuit that Argonaut should have been paying. 

13. On October 15, 2020 Stanton wrote to Argonaut's adjuster, asking Argonaut to 

state unequivocally whether it would provide a defense. Stanton also asked Argonaut to explain 

why, despite having been promptly provided all requested information by Stanton, Argonaut had 

nonetheless refused to either accept or reject coverage. Stanton further advised Argonaut that, 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 3 of 9 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID 23
because of Argonaut's refusal to assume the defense, it already had been forced to incur defense 

costs exceeding $125,000.00 in the Lawsuit. 

14. Finally, on December 16, 2020, Argonaut provided correspondence to Stanton, 

which it entitled "Reservation of Rights" (the "ROR"). In the ROR, Argonaut agreed to provide 

Stanton a defense in the Lawsuit and consented to Lynn Pinker serving as its defense counsel. 

Argonaut represented that it would pay Lynn Pinker's invoices going forward, purportedly at a 

reduced rate. Further, Argonaut represented that it was reviewing Lynn Pinker's invoices and 

would notify Stanton soon how much it would pay for the Defense Costs Stanton had incurred to 

date. Both statements were material misrepresentations: Argonaut never paid any of Lynn 

Pinker' s going forward defense costs-at a reduced rate or otherwise--or notified Stanton as to 

the amount of the pre-December 16, 2020 Defense Costs it would reimburse Stanton. 

V. CAUSES OF ACTION 

COUNT! 

BREACH OF CONTRACT BY ARGONAUT 

15. Argonaut failed to defend Stanton in the Lawsuit. Argonaut's failure to do so 

constitutes a breach contract, resulting in damages to Stanton for which it now sues. 

16. All conditions precedent to assert this claim have been performed by Stanton, 

have occurred, or have been excused. 

COUNT II 

THE INSURER'S VIOLATIONS OF TEX. INS. CODE CHAPTER 541 

17. By engaging in the conduct described above, the Insurer not only has breached its 

contractual obligations to Stanton, but has violated § 541.060 of the Texas Insurance Code as 

follows: 

a. misrepresenting to a claimant a material fact or policy provision 

relating to coverage at issue; 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 4 of 9 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID 24
b. failing 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; and 

c. refusing to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable 

investigation with respect to the claim. 

18. The Insurer committed this wrongful conduct knowingly. Plaintiff has fulfilled 

all conditions precedent to its recovery under this cause of action and has sustained actual 

damages resulting from this conduct for which it now sues. 

19. By engaging in the conduct described above, the Insurer also violated § 541.061 

of the Texas Insurance Code as follows: 

a. making an untrne statement of material fact; 

b. failing to state a material fact necessary to make other statements 

made not misleading, considering the circumstances under which 

the statements were made; 

c. making a statement in a manner that would mislead a reasonably 

prndent person to a false conclusion of a material fact; and 

d. making a material misstatement oflaw. 

20. The Insurer committed this wrongful conduct knowingly. Plaintiff has fulfilled 

all conditions precedent to its recovery under this cause of action and has sustained actual 

damages resulting from this conduct for which it now sues. 

COUNT III 

THE INSURER'S VIOLATIONS OF TEX. INS. CODE CHAPTER 542 

21. The Insurer's conduct also violated § 542.003 of the Texas Insurance Code as 

follows: a) knowingly misrepresenting to a claimant pertinent facts or policy provisions relating 

to coverage at issue; b) not attempting in good faith to effect a prompt, fair, and equitable 

settlement of a claim submitted in which liability has become reasonably clear; and 

c) compelling a policyholder to institute a suit to recover an amount due under a policy by 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 5 of 9 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID 25
offering substantially less than the amount ultimately recovered m a suit brought by the 

policyholder. 

22. The Insurer committed this wrongful conduct knowingly. Plaintiff has fulfilled 

all conditions precedent to its recovery under this cause of action and has sustained actual 

damages resulting from this conduct for which it now sues. 

23. Additionally, the Insurer's delay and conduct associated with handling the 

Insurance Claim violated the Section 542.058 of the Texas Insurance Code as follows: 

Delay[ing] payment of the claim for a period exceeding the period 

specified by other applicable statutes or, if other statutes do not specify a 

period, for more than 60 days after receiving all items, statements, and 

forms reasonably requested and required under Section 542.055. 

COUNTIV 

PLAINTIFF'S INVOCATION OF ITS RIGHTS UNDER 

TEX. INS. CODE §§ 541.152, 542.058, AND 542.060 

24. Pursuant to Texas law, and for the reasons described in this petition, Plaintiff 

seeks to recover a) the amount of actual damages, plus court costs and reasonable and necessary 

attorney's fees; b) additional damages in an amount three times the amount of actual damages, 

all as provided in§ 541.152 of the Texas Insurance Code; and c) any other relief the court deems 

proper. 

25. Additionally, Plaintiff invokes its rights under § 542.058 of the Texas Insurance 

Code to recover the penalties set forth in§ 542.060, including 18% interest and attorneys' fees. 

26. The Insurer committed this wrongful conduct knowingly. Plaintiff has fulfilled 

all conditions precedent to its recovery under this cause of action and has sustained actual 

damages resulting from this conduct for which it now sues. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 6 of 9 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID 26
COUNTV 

TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT VIOLATIONS 

27. For the reasons set forth above, the Insurer has violated § 17.46(b )(12) of the 

Texas Business & Commerce Code and under§ 17.50(a)(4) of the Texas Business & Commerce 

Code because their conduct violated Chapters 541 and 542 of the Texas Insurance Code, as 

outlined above. Additionally, the Insurer's unlawful acts were an unconscionable action or 

course of action under § 17.50(a)(3) of the Texas Business & Commerce Code because it 

attempted to take advantage of Stanton's lack of insurance coverage knowledge, ability, 

experience, and/or capacity with respect to interpreting the Policy and determining Stanton's 

rights under it to a grossly unfair degree. The resulting unfairness to Stanton glaringly is 

noticeable, flagrant, complete, and unmitigated. 

28. The Insurer's wrongful conduct was intentional, knowing, and a producing cause 

of damages to Plaintiff, which is entitled, therefore, to all the relief contained within the DTP A, 

including, but not limited to, economic damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs, and treble 

damages, for which it now sues. 

29. Plaintiff has fulfilled all conditions precedent to its recovery under this cause of 

action and has sustained actual damages resulting from this conduct for which it now sues. 

COUNT VI 

BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BY THE INSURER 

30. The Insurer owed Plaintiff a duty of good faith and fair dealing, which required it 

to (1) perform its duties and obligations under the Policy in a reasonable and timely manner, and 

(2) properly handle the Insurance Claim. The Insurer's actions described above were wanton, 

reckless, malicious and/or intentional in disregard to Plaintiffs rights under the Policy. 

Additionally, the Insurer's conduct described herein was malicious; fraudulent, or grossly 

negligent. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be determined 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 7 of9 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID 27
by the trier of fact. Plaintiff has fulfilled all conditions precedent to its recovery under this cause 

of action and has sustained actual damages resulting from this conduct for which it now sues. 

COUNT VII 

ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 

31. Pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. 

Code§ 38.001, the Insurance Code and the DTPA, Plaintiff hereby sues the Insurer for costs of 

court, and reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees. Plaintiff has fulfilled all conditions 

precedent to recovery of its fees and costs, including but not limited to presentment. 

COUNT VIII 

ADDITIONAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 

32. Further, Plaintiff seeks exemplary damages against the Insurer because its 

wrongful conduct was undertaken with a state of mind that justifies the imposition of exemplary 

damages. Plaintiff is entitled to additional damages under the Insurance Code and DTPA, as 

well, and hereby sues for such damages. 

VI. JURY DEMAND 

33. As is its right under the constitutions and laws of the United States of America 

and this State, Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests a trial by jury. 

WHEREFORE, Stanton respectfully requests that it have judgment against Defendant, 

consistent with its allegations in this Petition, and that it recovers its costs, attorneys' fees, preand post-judgment interest, special damages, penalties and/or exemplary damages, and such 

other and further relief at law or in equity to which it may be entitled. 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 8 of9 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID 28
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - Page 9 of9 

Respectfully submitted, 

Isl Bobby M. Rubarts 

Bobby M. Rubarts 

State Bar No. 17360330 

bobby.rubarts@koningrubarts.com 

Eve L. Henson 

State Bar No. 00791462 

eve.henson@koningrubarts.com 

KONING RUBARTS LLP 

1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4500 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Telephone: (214) 751-7900 

Facsimile: (214) 751-7888 

ATTORNEYSFORSTANTONLLP 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID 29
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. 

Maria Razo on behalf of Bobby Rubarts 

Bar No. 17360330 

maria.razo@koningrubarts.com 

Envelope ID: 65343437 

Status as of 6/16/2022 10:39 AM CST 

Case Contacts 

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status 

Bobby MarkRubarts bobby.rubarts@koningrubarts.com 6/10/2022 3:36:14 PM SENT 

Maria Razo maria.razo@koningrubarts.com 6/10/2022 3:36:14 PM SENT 

Eve Henson eve.henson@koningrubarts.com 6/10/2022 3:36:14 PM SENT 

Case 3:22-cv-01636-B Document 1-5 Filed 07/27/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID 30