UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

TRISURA SPECIALTY § 

INSURANCE COMPANY, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § 

 § 

PROVIDENT HOSPITALITY § 

HOLDINGS, LLC § 

 § 

Defendant. § 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-02369-m 

TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR RESCISSION, DECLARATORY 

JUDGMENT, AND INTERPLEADER 

 Plaintiff, Trisura Specialty Insurance Company (“Trisura”) brings this action for 

Rescission, Declaratory Judgment, and Interpleader against Provident Hospitality Holdings, LLC 

(“Provident”) and states as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is a civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 et seq. and Rule 57 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for rescission of and declaratory judgment concerning a series of 

commercial general liability and excess insurance policies that Plaintiff Trisura issued to 

Defendant Provident. Trisura has given notice to Provident that it has rescinded six insurance 

policies that it issued to Provident, and which were in effect over a three year period. Trisura is 

seeking judicial confirmation of that rescission. 

2. Plaintiff Trisura is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. As alleged more fully below, federal court jurisdiction of this matter 

is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) because the parties are citizens of different 

states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 1 of 17 PageID 412
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 2 

3. Based on an application for insurance signed on November 14, 2019 by Provident’s 

representative Mason Miller, Trisura issued commercial general liability policy number 

OSU1000613-00 to Provident for the period from October 25, 2019 to October 25, 2020 (“2019 

CGL Policy”). Based on the November 14, 2019 application, Trisura also issued excess liability 

policy number OSUXL10000009-00 to Provident (“2019 Excess Policy”). Provident is the named 

insured under these policies pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policies and applicable 

law. Provident also submitted applications to Trisura for the renewal of the 2019 CGL Policy and 

2019 Excess Policy. Trisura issued two renewal CGL and excess policies for the time periods from 

October 25, 2020 to October 25, 2021 and October 25, 2021 to October 25, 2022. All of these 

policies insured a number of hotel properties owed by Provident and operated across several states. 

4. Although no suit has been filed, Provident has recently been accused of allowing a 

sex trafficking ring to operate at its property located at 4820 W. Reno Avenue, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma. Upon learning of these serious criminal allegations, Trisura began to investigate this 

hotel property and discovered that local police were summoned to the Reno Avenue property on a 

near daily basis before the November 14, 2019 application was signed. On its applications for 

coverage, the purported insured, Provident, warranted that no crimes had occurred or been 

attempted at any of its hotel properties within the three (3) year time period before the application 

was signed. In addition to the three-year period preceding the execution of the 2019 application, 

extensive criminal activity was also discovered at the Reno Ave location before Provident 

submitted its renewal application to Trisura on or about November 2, 2020 and before it submitted 

its second renewal application on or about November 19, 2021. On these renewal applications, 

Provident also warranted that no crimes had occurred or been attempted on its premises. 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 2 of 17 PageID 413
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 3 

5. Trisura also discovered that in addition to the Reno Avenue property, several of 

Provident’s other hotels named as insured locations under the policies have been the sites of serious 

and frequent criminal activity in the time periods preceding the applications submitted for each 

policy period. 

6. Provident’s insurance applications contained misrepresentations that were material 

to the risk insured. Provident, in response to specific questions, failed to disclose the criminal 

activity that had taken place at its properties. The applications specifically asked if any crimes or 

attempted crimes had taken place on its premises, and Provident answered “NO,” which Trisura 

recently learned from police records, was patently false. 

7. Trisura seeks equitable rescission of the three commercial general liability 

insurance policies and the three excess liability policies that it issued to Provident because of 

misrepresentations made by Provident, which were material to the risk assumed by Trisura, and on 

which Trisura relied in deciding to issue the insurance policies to Provident. 

8. By letter dated October 12, 2022, Trisura, through its administrator, Origin 

Specialty Underwriters, sent a Tex. Ins. Code Sec. 705.005(b) notice letter to Provident setting 

forth the material representations that Trisura believes are false, and notifying Provident that it will 

refuse to be bound by the commercial general liability policies and the excess liability policies 

issued to Provident. 

9. Accordingly, as fully set forth below, Trisura petitions this Court for a judicial 

declaration that Trisura is entitled to rescind the policies issued to Provident, and that the rescission 

rendered all the policies void ab initio, on the grounds that they were issued in reliance on the 

materially false representations in the application(s). 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 3 of 17 PageID 414
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 4 

10. As part of its claim for rescission, Trisura has filed a motion for leave pursuant to 

Local Rule 67(b) to deposit all of the premiums paid by Provident for the six policies at issue into 

the registry of this Court, with such funds to be paid to Provident on entry of judgment rescinding 

the applicable Trisura policies and declaring them void ab initio. Trisura has provided Provident 

with notice of its intent not to be bound by policies within the requisite time period required by 

Texas Insurance Code §705.005. Accordingly, Trisura has complied with all conditions to 

rescission under Chapter 705 of the Texas Insurance Code. 

THE PARTIES 

11. Plaintiff Trisura Specialty Insurance Company is an Oklahoma corporation with its 

principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 

12. Defendant Provident Hospitality Holdings, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability 

company with its registered office at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Upon 

information and belief, all of Provident’s members are natural persons or corporate entities who 

are citizens of Texas and/or whose principal place of business is in Texas. Upon information and 

belief, none of Provident’s members are citizens of Oklahoma. Provident has appeared in this 

action. 

13. Third Party Defendant The Aegis Group, LLC (“Aegis”) has appeared in this 

action. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a). Diversity of citizenship exists completely between Plaintiff and Defendants. The amount 

in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 4 of 17 PageID 415
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 5 

15. Provident is a named insured under a series of commercial general liability policies 

and excess liability policies, which Trisura issued to Provident beginning on October 25, 2019 and 

continuing through October 25, 2022. The commercial general liability policies each have a 

$1,000,000 per claim limit of liability and a $2,000,000 aggregate limit of liability. The excess 

liability policies each have a $5,000,000 limit of liability per claim and in the aggregate. 

16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is present 

in and is conducting business in Texas, and it engaged in activities in Texas that gave rise to 

Plaintiff’s claims. 

17. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial 

part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. The Trisura insurance 

policies were issued in Texas to Provident and its principal office address of 10210 Central 

Expressway, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas 75231. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Provident’s Applications for Insurance and the Policies 

18. On or about November 14, 2019, Provident, through its agent, Andy Frieze with 

The Aegis Group, LLC submitted a Commercial Insurance Application to Trisura (“2019 

Application”). Through the 2019 Application, Provident applied for both CGL and excess liability 

coverage with Trisura. This application was signed by Provident’s representative, Mason Miller, 

and asked Provident the following question: 

20. Have any crimes occurred or been attempted on your premises within the 

last three (3) years? 

Provident answered “No.” 

17. When the 2019 policies were set to expire, Provident, through its agent, Aegis, 

submitted a Commercial Insurance Application for renewal of its commercial general liability 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 5 of 17 PageID 416
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 6 

insurance policy and its excess liability policy (“2020 Application”). This application was 

electronically signed by Mason Miller and Andy Frieze with Aegis, who was acting as Provident’s 

agent for purposes of procuring insurance coverage. The 2020 Application asked: 

20. Have any crimes occurred or been attempted on your premises within the 

last three (3) years? 

Provident answered “No.” 

18. When the 2020 policies were set to expire, Provident submitted to Trisura a 

Commercial Insurance Application seeking renewal of its commercial general liability and excess 

liability policies (“2021 Application”). The 2021 Application was submitted to Trisura by 

Provident’s insurance agent, JKL Group, LLC. Like the previous two applications, the 2021 

Application asked the following question: 

20. Have any crimes occurred or been attempted on your premises within the 

last three (3) years? 

Provident answered “No.” 

19. Through its initial 2019 Application, Provident requested a commercial general 

liability policy and an excess liability policy effective from October 25, 2019 to October 25, 2020, 

and Trisura issued Commercial General Liability policy number OSU1000613-00 to Provident 

(“2019 CGL Policy”). Trisura issued Commercial Excess Liability policy number 

OSUXL1000009-00 to Provident (“2019 Excess Policy”). 

20. Through its 2020 Application, Provident requested renewal of its commercial 

general liability and excess liability coverage for the policy period effective from October 25, 2020 

to October 20, 2021. Trisura renewed Provident’s coverage and issued Commercial General 

Liability policy number OSU1000613-01 (“2020 CGL Policy”). Trisura also renewed Provident’s 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 6 of 17 PageID 417
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 7 

excess coverage, and issued Commercial Excess Liability policy number OSUXL1000009-01 

(“2020 Excess Policy”). 

21. Through its 2021 Application, Provident requested renewal of its commercial 

general liability and excess liability coverage for the policy period effective from October 25, 2021 

to October 20, 2022. Trisura renewed Provident’s coverage and issued Commercial General 

Liability policy number OSU1003676-00 (“2021 CGL Policy”). Trisura also renewed Provident’s 

excess coverage, and issued Commercial Excess Liability policy number OSUXL1000332-00 

(“2021 Excess Policy”). 

22. Each application contains a warranty on the signature page that provides: 

THE UNDERSIGNED IS AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF 

THE APPLICANT AND REPRESENTS THAT REASONABLE 

INQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE TO OBTAIN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 

ON THIS APPLICATION. HE/SHE REPRESENTS THAT THE 

ANSWERS ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST 

OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE. 

23. Question 20 on each of the applications directly asked Provident whether any 

crimes had occurred or been attempted on its premises within the last three years, and Provident 

answered “NO.” Trisura has discovered that Provident’s answers were materially false, as local 

police records revealed a plethora of criminal activity taking place at not only the Reno Avenue 

property in Oklahoma City, but also at other insured locations. 

24. Provident knew or had constructive knowledge that this criminal activity was 

occurring because often the police calls would involve the staff of the hotel properties. According 

to police reports, staff were routinely asked for camera footage related to the criminal activity, staff 

gave statements to the police about reported crimes on the property, and sometimes staff were 

victims of the crimes reported. 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 7 of 17 PageID 418
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 8 

25. Police reports from the relevant jurisdictions show that police were summoned to 

the insured’s properties on almost a daily basis to investigate a variety of criminal accusations. The 

following is a brief sample of some of the crimes occurring before the various applications were 

signed at the Reno Avenue location alone: 

x 1-27-18 – Assault with a Dangerous Weapon - Hotel front desk employee called 

police and reported that a patron of the hotel grabbed a front desk monitor and hit 

her in the face with it causing serious injury. 

x 5-11-18 – Larceny – Hotel patron reports that luggage was stolen from his room. 

x 5-17-18 – Larceny – Hotel patron reports that his clothes and luggage were stolen 

from laundry room of hotel. Police officer spoke to hotel staff about video footage 

of the area and the employee told police this was not the first time this has 

happened. 

x 5-24-18 – Burglary – Car in hotel parking lot was broken into and possessions 

stolen. 

x 6-9-18 – Burglary – Hotel patron reports that someone at the property used a 

master key card to enter his room and steal his property. Hotel staff told police they 

could get access to video footage of the incident. 

x 8-21-18 – Assault and Battery – Hotel patron reports she was assaulted in the hotel 

lobby. Hotel staff showed police video footage of area, which confirmed the 

victim’s account. 

x 9-17-18 – Larceny of a Vehicle – Hotel patron reports her vehicle was stolen from 

the parking lot. 

x 9-25-18 – Larceny of a Vehicle – Hotel patron reports his vehicle was stolen from 

the parking lot. 

x 10-13-18 – Burglary – Police responded to an auto burglary in progress call. The 

police apprehended the suspects who were arrested at the hotel. 

x 10-18-18 – Prostitution – Police arrested person who was charged with engaging 

in prostitution on the property. 

x 6-10-19 – Theft – Auto burglarized in the hotel parking lot. 

x 6-11-19 – Theft – Hotel patron reported his car was burglarized. Hotel staff 

discussed the incident with police and told them there was no video footage 

available. 

x 6-15-19 – Theft – Hotel patron reported his vehicle has been burglarized in the 

parking lot. Hotel staff told police that several auto burglaries had occurred this 

same night. 

x 6-26-19 – Vandalism – Car windows broken out while on hotel property. 

x 7-27-19 – Auto Theft – Car stolen from hotel parking lot. 

x 9-21-19 – Assault – Hotel patron reports he was assaulted on the hotel property. 

x 9-29-19 – Vandalism – Hotel patron reported her car was keyed in the parking lot. 

Police spoke to hotel employee to try and obtain video footage of the area. 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 8 of 17 PageID 419
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 9 

x 10-26-20 – Theft – Hotel patron reported she was pickpocketed in the hotel parking 

lot. 

x 9-6-21 – Robbery – Hotel patron reports she was hit in the head and her money 

was stolen. Hotel staff told police that they have video surveillance footage of the 

area where the robbery occurred. 

x 10-16-21 – Forcible Rape - Hotel patron reports that she was raped at the hotel. 

26. The crime reports discussed above are but a mere fraction of police calls and 

reported offenses occurring on a frequent basis at the Reno Avenue property alone. Police records 

from this location as well as the insured’s other locations show literally hundreds of police calls 

related to criminal activity and numerous arrests on the insured’s properties. Police call logs 

demonstrate that drug charges, weapons violations, thefts, and assaults (as well as other serious 

offenses) were a regular occurrence at the insured’s hotel properties. 

27. Provident’s representations that no crimes had occurred or been attempted on its 

premises were blatantly false and made with intent to deceive Trisura and induce issuance of the 

policies. Provident committed this same material misrepresentation on not one, but all three 

applications for coverage. 

28. The insurance policies that Trisura issued to Provident contain the following 

language: 

In consideration of the payment of premium and in reliance upon statements made 

in the application, this policy including all endorsements issued herewith shall 

constitute the contract between Company and Named Insured... 

29. The policies also contain the following language: 

 SECTION IV – COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS 

 6. Representations 

 By accepting this policy, you agree: 

a. The statements in the Declarations are accurate and complete; 

b. Those statements are based upon representations you made to us; and 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 9 of 17 PageID 420
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 10 

c. We have issued this policy in reliance upon your representations. 

30. In the applications for coverage and in the policies, Provident warranted that the 

information it provided to Trisura was accurate and complete. 

31. Had Trisura known that Provident had blatantly misrepresented that there was no 

criminal activity on its property, it would not have issued any of the policies to Provident. 

32. Provident is claiming that its franchise agreements required it to maintain insurance 

covering its properties. Provident was motivated to deceive Trisura into issuing the policies 

because it did not want to risk potentially breaching the franchise agreements by not having any 

coverage in place. 

33. Provident’s misrepresentations in denying that any criminal activity had occurred 

on its properties within three years before each policy was issued contributed to the contingency 

involving Provident and the current sex trafficking allegations. Because numerous crimes had 

occurred unabated on Provident’s hotel properties (and often with hotel employee knowledge), it 

was more likely that other crimes would occur after the policies were issued, such as the current 

sex trafficking allegations. 

The Underlying Claim 

34. Kyle and Alyssa Morris claim that their minor daughter was brought to the insured’s 

Reno Avenue location in April 2022, and that the hotel employees there facilitated sex trafficking 

activities by allegedly renting multiple hotel rooms to a registered sex offender using a fake 

identification card. The Morrises claim that while on the property, their daughter was sexually 

exploited. The Morrises have advised that they intend to pursue claims of negligence, negligent 

hiring and retention, negligent security, gross negligence, assault, premises liability, and claims 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 10 of 17 PageID 421
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 11 

under the Trafficking of Persons provisions found in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 

Chapter 98. 

35. Trisura learned about these allegations on or about May 9, 2022 when Provident 

provided it with a copy of a letter from the Morris’s attorney threatening legal action against 

Provident. 

The Tex. Ins. Code Sec. 705.005(b) Notice 

36. After Trisura received notice of the loss from Provident on May 9, 2022, several 

concerns were raised that prompted Trisura to further investigate the insured’s properties. During 

this investigation, Trisura learned that many criminal offenses had occurred on Provident’s 

premises. 

37. Trisura examined the representations that Provident made in each of its applications 

for coverage, and determined that Provident had made misrepresentations in its applications. These 

misrepresentations were material to the risk Trisura agreed to assume by issuing the CGL and 

Excess policies to Provident. 

38. By letter dated October 12, 2022, which was sent to Provident via certified mail, 

return receipt requested, before the 91st day after Trisura discovered the falsity of Provident’s 

representations, Trisura gave notice to Provident, pursuant to Tex. Ins. Code Sec. 705.005(b), that 

Trisura will refuse to be bound by the 2019 CGL Policy, the 2019 Excess Policy, the 2020 CGL 

Policy, the 2020 Excess Policy, the 2021 CGL Policy, and the 2021 Excess Policy. Once this action 

has commenced, Trisura will file a motion for leave pursuant to Local Rule 67(b), requesting to 

deposit funds representing all of the premiums paid by Provident for the six Trisura policies into 

the registry of this Court, with said funds to be paid to Provident upon entry of a judgment 

rescinding the policies and declaring them void ab initio. 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 11 of 17 PageID 422
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 12 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

RESCISSION OF THE 2019 CGL POLICY AND 2019 EXCESS POLICY 

39. In support its First Cause of Action, Trisura incorporates the statements made in 

the preceding paragraphs. 

40. Trisura is entitled to rescind the 2019 CGL Policy and the 2019 Excess Policy, 

pursuant to Texas Insurance Code Chapter 705. 

41. Provident warranted that the statements in the 2019 Application were true and 

correct, and that it had made reasonable inquiry to ensure the accuracy of its representations. 

Provident misrepresented to Trisura that no crimes had occurred or been attempted at its premises 

in the past three years. 

42. On October 25, 2019, in reliance on Provident’s representations in the 2019 

Application, Trisura issued the 2019 CGL Policy and 2019 Excess Policy to Provident. 

43. Provident understood that the representations made in the 2019 Application would 

be considered in deciding whether to issue the 2019 CGL Policy and the 2019 Excess Policy. 

44. The 2019 Application was false in a material point, at the very least, because 

Provident untruthfully represented, with intent to deceive Trisura, that no crimes had occurred or 

been attempted on its premises during the three-year period preceding the date of the 2019 

Application. Provident warranted that it had made reasonable inquiry in order to obtain the answers 

to the questions on the 2019 Application. With even the most minimal inquiry, Provident must 

have known about the circumstances surrounding the criminal activity at its properties. 

45. Trisura issued the 2019 CGL Policy and 2019 Excess Policy in reliance on the 

materially false 2019 Application. Had Trisura been aware of the omitted facts, circumstances, and 

situations, it would not have issued the 2019 CGL Policy and 2019 Excess Policy at all, let alone 

for the same premium and on the same terms and conditions. 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 12 of 17 PageID 423
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 13 

46. Notice of rescission is hereby given, and once this action has commenced, Trisura 

will file a motion under Local Rule 67(b), requesting leave of court to deposit Provident’s 

premiums in the sum of $111,654.25 into the Court’s registry, to be paid to Provident on entry of 

judgment rescinding the 2019 CGL Policy and the 2019 Excess Policy and declaring them void ab 

initio. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

RESCISSION OF THE 2020 CGL POLICY AND 2020 EXCESS POLICY 

47. In support its Second Cause of Action, Trisura incorporates the statements made 

in the preceding paragraphs. 

48. Trisura is entitled to rescind the 2020 CGL Policy and the 2020 Excess Policy, 

pursuant to Texas Insurance Code Chapter 705. 

49. Provident warranted that the statements in the 2020 Application were true and 

correct, and that it had made reasonable inquiry to ensure the accuracy of its representations. 

Provident misrepresented to Trisura that no crimes had occurred or been attempted at its premises 

in the past three years. 

50. On October 25, 2020, in reliance on Provident’s representations in the 2020 

Application, as well as the representations made in the 2019 Application, which caused Trisura to 

initially accept this risk, Trisura renewed Provident’s coverage, and issued the 2020 CGL Policy 

and 2020 Excess Policy. 

51. Provident understood that the representations made in the 2020 Application would 

be considered in deciding whether to issue the 2020 CGL Policy and the 2020 Excess Policy. 

52. The 2020 Application was false in a material point, at the very least, because 

Provident untruthfully represented, with intent to deceive Trisura, that no crimes had occurred or 

been attempted on its premises during the three-year period preceding the date of the 2020 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 13 of 17 PageID 424
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 14 

Application. Provident warranted that it had made reasonable inquiry in order to obtain the answers 

to the questions on the 2020 Application. With even the most minimal inquiry Provident must have 

known about the circumstances surrounding the criminal activity at its properties. 

53. Trisura issued the 2020 CGL Policy and 2020 Excess Policy in reliance on the 

materially false 2020 Application and the materially false 2019 Application. Had Trisura been 

aware of the omitted facts, circumstances, and situations, it would not have issued the 2020 CGL 

Policy and 2020 Excess Policy at all, let alone for the same premium and on the same terms and 

conditions. 

54. Notice of rescission is hereby given, and once this action has commenced, Trisura 

will file a motion under Local Rule 67(b) requesting leave of court to deposit Provident’s premiums 

in the sum of $134,451.61 into the registry of the Court, to be paid to Provident on entry of 

judgment rescinding the 2020 CGL Policy and the 2020 Excess Policy and declaring them void ab

initio. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

RESCISSION OF THE 2021 CGL POLICY AND 2021 EXCESS POLICY 

 54. In support its Third Cause of Action, Trisura incorporates the statements made in 

the preceding paragraphs. 

55. Trisura is entitled to rescind the 2021 CGL Policy and the 2021 Excess Policy, 

pursuant to Texas Insurance Code Chapter 705. 

56. Provident warranted that the statements in the 2021 Application were true and 

correct, and that it had made reasonable inquiry to ensure the accuracy of its representations. 

Provident misrepresented to Trisura that no crimes had occurred or been attempted at its premises 

in the past three years. In addition, Provident, through its agent, submitted a supplemental 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 14 of 17 PageID 425
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 15 

application dated November 19, 2021 (“2021 Supplemental Application”), in which it agreed as 

follows: 

"I hereby apply for a policy of insurance as set forth in the application and I certify 

that all the information provided by me in this application is true and complete. I 

understand that any policy which may be issued by the company will be issued on 

the basis of and in reliance upon my statements in this application. I agree that such 

policy shall be null and void if any such statements are false, misleading or 

incomplete. 

57. In addition to this warranty by Provident, Provident’s retail insurance agent 

warranted as follows: 

“I hereby warrant and certify that all information contained in this application is 

correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, that this application 

was completed and personally signed by the applicant and that a completed copy 

hereof has been given to the applicant. 

The 2021 Supplemental Application was signed by Provident’s retail agent, Erin Games, as well 

as by the insured. 

58. In reliance on Provident’s representations in the 2021 Application and the 2021 

Supplemental Application, as well as the representations made in the 2019 Application and 2020 

Application, which caused Trisura to initially accept this risk, Trisura renewed Provident’s 

coverage and issued the 2021 CGL Policy and 2021 Excess Policy. 

59. Provident understood that the representations made in the 2021 Application and 

2021 Supplemental Application would be considered in deciding whether to issue the 2021 CGL 

Policy and the 2021 Excess Policy. 

60. The 2021 Application was false in a material point, at the very least, because 

Provident untruthfully represented, with intent to deceive Trisura, that no crimes had occurred or 

been attempted on its premises during the three-year period preceding the date of the 2021 

Application. Provident warranted that it had made reasonable inquiry in order to obtain the answers 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 15 of 17 PageID 426
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 16 

to the questions on the 2021 Application. With even the most minimal inquiry, Provident must 

have known about the circumstances surrounding the criminal activity at its properties. 

61. Trisura issued the 2021 CGL Policy and 2021 Excess Policy in reliance on the 

materially false 2021 Application, as well as the materially false 2020 Application and 2019 

Application. Had Trisura been aware of the omitted facts, circumstances, and situations, it would 

not have issued the 2021 CGL Policy and 2021 Excess Policy at all, let alone for the same premium 

and on the same terms and conditions. 

62. Notice of rescission is hereby given, and once this action has commenced, Trisura 

will file a motion under Local Rule 67(b) requesting leave of court to deposit Provident’s premiums 

in the sum of $169,436.00 into the registry of the Court, to be paid to Provident on entry of 

judgment rescinding the 2021 CGL Policy and the 2021 Excess Policy and declaring them void ab

initio. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Trisura Specialty Insurance Company respectfully requests that 

the Court: 

(1) Order, adjudge, and decree that the 2019 CGL Policy is rescinded, in its entirety, 

and void ab initio; 

(2) Order, adjudge, and decree that the 2019 Excess Policy is rescinded, in its entirety, 

and void ab initio; 

(3) Order, adjudge, and decree that the 2020 CGL Policy is rescinded, in its entirety, 

and void ab initio; 

(4) Order, adjudge, and decree that the 2020 Excess Policy is rescinded, in its entirety, 

and void ab initio; 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 16 of 17 PageID 427
TRISURA’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 17 

(5) Order, adjudge, and decree that the 2021 CGL Policy is rescinded, in its entirety, 

and void ab initio; 

(6) Order, adjudge, and decree that the 2021 Excess Policy is rescinded, in its entirety, 

and void ab initio; 

(7) Award Trisura any such other and further relief as is just and appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Beth Bradley 

Beth Bradley 

SBN 06243900 

bethb@tbmmlaw.com 

Lori Murphy 

SBN 14701744 

lorim@tbmmlaw.com 

TOLLEFSON BRADLEY MITCHELL & MELENDI, LLP 

2811 McKinney Avenue, Suite 250 West 

Dallas, Texas 75204 

Telephone: 214-665-0100 

Facsimile: 214-665-0199 

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF TRISURA 

SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on May _______, 2023, I served the foregoing document on counsel 

of record via electronic means in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

/s/ Beth Bradley 

 Beth Bradley 

Case 3:22-cv-02369-M Document 53 Filed 06/07/23 Page 17 of 17 PageID 428