UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

J. DAVID KONCAK,

Plaintiff,

VS.

AMERICAN SECURITY

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-1160-G

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the defendant American Security Insurance Company’s

(“American Security”) motion to preclude the plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees. 

American Security Insurance Company’s Motion to Preclude Plaintiff’s Recovery of

Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion to Preclude”) (docket entry 9). For the reasons below, the

motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A hailstorm damaged J. David Koncak’s (“Koncak”) home in June 2019. 

Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Jury Demand (docket entry 6-2) at 2. Koncak

submitted an insurance claim to his insurer American Security, but later a second

Case 3:22-cv-01160-G Document 14 Filed 01/03/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 278
storm caused additional property damage in October 2019. Id. at 2-3. After

disputing the value of the claims, Koncak’s attorney sent a pre-suit demand letter to

American Security on November 29, 2021. American Security Insurance Company’s

Appendix (“Appendix to Motion”) (docket entry 9-1) at 44-47. The letter demanded

$550,000 in damages plus $5,000 in attorney’s fees. Id. at 46-47.

Koncak filed this suit on March 16, 2022 in a Texas state court, Plaintiff’s

Original Petition and Jury Demand, and American Security timely removed this case

to federal court on May 27, 2022, see Amended Notice of Removal (docket entry 6). 

On June 22, 2022, American Security filed a motion to preclude Koncak’s recovery of

attorney’s fees. Motion to Preclude. American Security contends that Koncak’s presuit demand letter does not satisfy the requirements of Texas Insurance Code section

542A.003(b). Id. at 4-6. Koncak filed his response to the motion on July 11, 2022,

arguing that the letter is adequate for section 542A.003(b). Plaintiff’s Response to

Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Plaintiff’s Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees (“Response”)

(docket entry 11) ¶¶ 4-8. American Security filed its reply to Koncak’s response on

July 25, 2022. American Security Insurance Company’s Reply in Support of its

Motion to Preclude Plaintiff’s Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees (“Reply”) (docket entry

13). The motion is now ripe for decision.

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-01160-G Document 14 Filed 01/03/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 279
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;

(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). If the claimant fails to provide sufficient notice, 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.

- 3 -

Case 3:22-cv-01160-G Document 14 Filed 01/03/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 280
B. Application

It is undisputed that American Security was entitled to pre-suit notice under

section 542A.003, and the parties only dispute whether section 542A.003(b)(2) is

satisfied. American Security argues that Koncak’s pre-suit demand letter did not

include “the specific amount alleged to be owed by the insurer on the claim for

damage to or loss of the covered property,” see TEX. INS. CODE § 542A.003(b)(2), so

that Koncak is precluded from recovering attorney’s fees in this suit, Motion to

Preclude ¶¶ 6-10. American Security contends that the pre-suit demand letter does

not specify the amount claimed, but instead is “vague and ambiguous” and demands

a “conservative estimate of” $550,000. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Further, American Security urges

the court to consider the purpose behind section 542A. Id. ¶¶ 7-8,10. Koncak, in

turn, contends that the pre-suit demand letter is adequate because it provided a

specific dollar amount. Response ¶ 8. The court agrees with Koncak.

The statute only requires that pre-suit notice includes “the specific amount

alleged to be owed by the insurer[.]” TEX. INS. CODE § 542A.003(b)(2). The pre-suit

demand letter specified $550,000 for damages incurred to Koncak’s property. 

Appendix to Motion at 46-47. American Security contends that the demand amount

is inadequate because the calculation is illogical, see Motion to Preclude ¶ 9, and that

another Texas district court has commended a plaintiff for “submitting damage

appraisals that specifically addressed the amount of property damage owed under the

- 4 -

Case 3:22-cv-01160-G Document 14 Filed 01/03/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 281
claim,” Reply ¶4 (citing Perrett v. Allstate Insurance Company, 354 F. Supp. 3d 755,

758 (S.D. Tex. 2018)). But the statute does not require reasonableness or

submitting damage appraisals in pre-suit notice. See TEX. INS. CODE §

542A.003(b)(2).

The court agrees with its sister courts that “the specific amount alleged to be

owed” requirement is satisfied when the notice includes a specific dollar amount. 

See, e.g., Mount Canaan Missionary Baptist Church v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance

Company, No. 4:19-CV-00660, 2019 WL 13114309, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2019);

see Nisha Hospitality, LLC v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, No. 3:22-CV-1811-X, 2022

WL 17417995, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2022) (Starr, J.). Even if the pre-suit

demand letter’s specific amount was an estimate and “vague and ambiguous” as

American Security contends, that does not render the notice invalid under section

542A.003(b) because the letter alleges an amount to be owed. See Mount Canaan,

2019 WL 13114309, at *5 (holding that “the specific amount alleged was not

necessarily the final amount owed may affect the merits arguments at a later juncture

. . . but did not deprive [the insurer] of the statutory notice owed to it[.]”). The

statute does not require proof of damages or reasonableness for pre-suit notice, only a

specific amount alleged to be owed. See TEX. INS. CODE § 542A.003(b)(2). The court

declines to read any additional requirements for pre-suit notice into section

542A.003(b), and thus, the court concludes the pre-suit demand letter satisfies the 

- 5 -

Case 3:22-cv-01160-G Document 14 Filed 01/03/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 282
statute.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, American Security’s motion to preclude

Koncak’s recovery of attorney’s fees is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

January 3, 2023.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 6 -

Case 3:22-cv-01160-G Document 14 Filed 01/03/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 283