Page 1 of 19

2877752.2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

(Western Division)

SILENT STORM HOLDINGS, LLC

928 Angelica Lane

Tega Cay, South Carolina 29708

Plaintiff, 

v.

WFG NATIONAL TITLE 

INSURANCE COMPANY

16700 Valley View, Suite 275

La Mirada, California 90638

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00094

Judge 

COMPLAINT

__________________________________________________

Plaintiff, Silent Storm Holdings, LLC (“Silent Storm”), by and through its 

undersigned counsel, sues Defendant, WFG National Title Insurance Company (“WFG”),

state as follows upon investigation of counsel and information and belief for its 

complaint:

Allegations Common to All Counts

The Parties

1. Silent Storm is a North Carolina limited liability company and is 

registered to do business in the State of Ohio. Its sole member is Philip McHugh, who is 

a citizen of and resides in North Carolina.

2. WFG is a South Carolina corporation and is licensed by the Ohio 

Department of Insurance to issue title insurance in the State of Ohio.
Page 2 of 19

2877752.2

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction 

over this case, as there is complete diversity among the parties and the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000.

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, this Court is the proper venue for this 

controversy because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred within the Southern District of Ohio.

The Transaction

5. In early 2015, Mandrina Investments Ohio, LLC (“Mandrina”), and its 

principal, Robert Collinsworth (“Mr. Collinsworth”), contacted Silent Storm about the 

possibility of making a loan (the “Transaction”) to Mandrina and Mr. Collinsworth so 

that Mandrina could purchase 15 parcels of real property (the “Properties”) located in 

Hamilton County, Ohio.

6. Silent Storm agreed to loan Mandrina and Mr. Collinsworth the sum of 

$500,000.00, which obligation would be evidenced by a promissory note (the “Note”) 

and secured by a mortgage (the “Mortgage”) on the Properties.

WFG’s Agent Fails to Offer Closing Protection Coverage to Silent Storm

7. Mandrina and Mr. Collinsworth designated Benchmark Escrow & Title 

Agency, LLC (“Benchmark”), as the closing and title agent for the Transaction.

8. Benchmark is a duly-authorized agent of WFG, and as such has the 

authority, among other things, to issue title insurance and closing protection coverage on 

behalf of WFG.
Page 3 of 19

2877752.2

9. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 3953.32 (the “CPC Statute”), 

Benchmark was required at the time the order was placed for the issuance of a title 

insurance policy to offer closing protection coverage (“Closing Protection Coverage”) to 

Silent Storm. The CPC Statute provides:

3953.32 Offer of closing or settlement protection to parties.

(A) At the time an order is placed with a title insurance company for 

issuance of a title insurance policy, the title insurance company or the title 

insurance agent shall offer closing or settlement protection to the lender, 

borrower, and seller of the property, and to any applicant for title 

insurance. 

(B) The closing or settlement protection offered pursuant to this section 

shall indemnify any lender, borrower, seller, and applicant that has 

requested the protection, both individually and collectively, against the 

loss of settlement funds resulting from any of the following acts of the title 

insurance company's named title insurance agent or anyone acting on the 

agent's behalf: 

(1) Theft, misappropriation, fraud, or any other failure to properly disburse 

settlement, closing, or escrow funds; 

(2) Failure to comply with any applicable written closing instructions, 

when agreed to by the title insurance agent. 

(C) The issuance of closing or settlement protection by a title insurance 

company pursuant to division (A) of this section is part of the business of 

title insurance for purposes of Chapter 3953. of the Revised Code. 

(D) Except as provided in division (A) of this section, a title insurance 

company shall not offer or issue any coverage purporting to indemnify 

against a person's improper acts or omissions in connection with escrow, 

settlement, or closing services. 

(E) The superintendent of insurance may adopt rules in accordance with 

Chapter 119. of the Revised Code as the superintendent considers 

necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including, but not 

limited to, rules that detail the specific language that must be included in 
Page 4 of 19

2877752.2

the written document offering closing or settlement protection as provided 

for in division (A) of this section.

10. During the relevant time frame, the form that Ohio title agents and 

underwriters were required to use to offer Closing Protection Coverage is attached hereto 

as Exhibit A, which is approved and mandated by the Ohio Department of Insurance as 

Form CP-24.1 (“Form CP-24.1”).

11. During the relevant time frame, the form that Ohio title agents were 

required to issue Closing Protection Coverage is attached hereto as Exhibit B, which is 

approved and mandated by the Ohio Department of Insurance as Form CP-24 (“Form 

CP-24). In pertinent part, Form CP-24 provides:

Dear Customer:

When title insurance is specified in connection with closing of the abovedescribed real estate transaction (the "Closing")in which Closing you are 

the Covered Party hereunder with an interest in land or a lender secured by 

a mortgage (including any other security interest) of an interest in land, 

Blank Title Insurance Company (the "Company"), subject to the 

Conditions and Exclusions set forth below, hereby agrees to reimburse 

you for actual loss incurred by you in connection with the Closing, when 

such Closing is conducted by the above named Licensed Agent (an agent 

licensed and authorized to issue title insurance in the State of Ohio for the 

Company) and where such loss arises out of:

1. Theft, misappropriation, fraud or any other failure of the Licensed 

Agent, or anyone acting on the Licensed Agent's behalf, to properly 

handle and disburse your funds or documents in connection with such 

Closing; or

2. Failure of the Licensed Agent, or anyone acting on the Licensed 

Agent's behalf, to comply with any applicable written

closing instructions, when agreed to by the Licensed Agent, to the extent 

that they relate to: (a) the status of the title to said interest in land or the 

marketability thereof as insured or the validity, enforceability and priority 

of the lien of said mortgage on said interest in land, including the 

obtaining of documents and the disbursement of funds necessary
Page 5 of 19

2877752.2

to establish such status of title or lien; or (b) the obtaining of any other 

document, specifically required by you, but only to the extent the failure to 

obtain such other document affects the status of the title to said interest in 

land or the validity, enforceability and priority of the lien of said mortgage 

on said interest in land, but not to the extent that said instructions require a 

determination of the validity, enforceability or effectiveness of such other 

document.

12. The closing (the “Closing”) of the Transaction took place at Benchmark 

on February 6, 2015.

13. Benchmark never submitted Form CP-24.1 to Silent Storm for review or 

execution, or otherwise offered Closing Protection Coverage to Silent Storm.

14. Benchmark did, however, charge and collect $40.00 on line number 1106 

of the closing statement for the Transaction for “Closing Protection,” which was the Ohio 

statutory fee for lender’s Closing Protection Coverage. A copy of the closing statement

(the “Closing Statement”) from the Transaction is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

15. Had Benchmark complied with the CPC Statute and offered Closing 

Protection Coverage to it, Silent Storm would have accepted the offer and executed Form 

CP-24.1. Even without Silent Storm’s election on Form CP-24.1, however, Benchmark 

collected for the issuance of Closing Protection Coverage to Silent Storm, and WFG 

should be compelled to honor the coverage obligations in Form CP-24.

16. Benchmark obtained signatures from the other parties (Mandrina and the 

Sellers) to the Transaction on Form CP-24.1, copies of which are attached hereto as 

Exhibit D, in which they declined Closing Protection Coverage.
Page 6 of 19

2877752.2

WFG’s Agent Fails to Discharge Closing Duties

17. The executed Closing Statement constitutes written closing instructions 

from Silent Storm.

18. At Closing, Benchmark disbursed $70,572.58 to McIntosh Family 

Properties, LLC (“McIntosh”), which is indicated on line number 104 of the Closing 

Statement. McIntosh was purportedly owed money by Mandrina and/or Mr. 

Collinsworth for an assignment of the purchase contract for the Properties.

19. At Closing, Silent Storm instructed Benchmark to verify that Mandrina 

and/or Mr. Collinsworth had paid to McIntosh the sum of $167,000.00, which was 

purportedly the remaining sum owed to McIntosh for the assignment of the purchase 

contract for the Properties. Benchmark replied to Silent Storm that it had verified the 

$167,000 payment and would indicate the same on the Closing Statement, which amount 

is shown on line number 104. Silent Storm relied to its detriment upon Benchmark’s 

representation that Mandrina and/or Mr. Collinsworth had paid $167,000.00 to McIntosh.

20. After Closing, later on the same day, Mr. Collinsworth and the owner of 

McIntosh returned to Benchmark’s offices and requested that the $70,572.58 check 

payable to McIntosh be split into two checks: (a) a check for $11,000.00 payable to 

McIntosh, and (b) a check for $59,572.58 payable jointly to McIntosh and Mr. 

Collinsworth (the “Joint Check”). Benchmark complied with the request and issued these 

two checks, which disbursements were in violation of the Closing Statement.

21. As a result of this improper disbursement, Mr. Collinsworth received 

$59,572.58 from Closing, which was in violation of the Closing Statement.
Page 7 of 19

2877752.2

22. Benchmark failed to ask Silent Storm whether it consented to Mr. 

Collinsworth receiving $59,572.58 from the Closing.

23. Had Benchmark informed Silent Storm that McIntosh and Mr. 

Collinsworth were requesting the Joint Check, Silent Storm would have immediately 

objected and demanded that Benchmark terminate the Closing and stop payment on all 

disbursements made at Closing.

24. Benchmark’s issuance of the Joint Check in violation of the Closing 

Statement triggers Closing Protection Coverage of Form CP-24, in that it constitutes 

“[t]heft, misappropriation, fraud or any other failure of the Licensed Agent, or anyone 

acting on the Licensed Agent's behalf, to properly handle and disburse your funds or 

documents in connection with such Closing.”

25. The purported $167,000.00 payments outside of closing from 

Mandrina/Mr. Collinsworth to McIntosh, which Benchmark claimed it had verified and 

placed on the Closing Statement, were never made.

26. Accordingly, instead of Mr. Collinsworth and Mandrina putting 

$167,000.00 into the Transaction, Mr. Collinsworth was able to convince Benchmark to 

disburse the Joint Check in violation of the Closing Statement, which allowed him to 

receive $59,572.58 from the Transaction.

27. Moreover, although Benchmark had Mandrina execute quit-claim deeds in 

favor of Silent Storm to further secure repayment of the Note, it released the originals of 

said deeds to Mr. Collinsworth, which was in violation of closing instructions given by 

Silent Storm.
Page 8 of 19

2877752.2

WFG’s Bad Faith Handling of Silent Storm’s Claim

28. On or about June 26, 2015, Mandrina and Mr. Collinsworth defaulted on 

their payment obligations under the Promissory Note and Mortgage.

29. In or about August 2015, Silent Storm contacted Benchmark regarding the 

quit-claim deeds that were supposed to be held in escrow and demanded that they be 

recorded.

30. On or about August 24, 2015, Benchmark contacted WFG and reported 

that Silent Storm was asking that the quit-claim deeds be recorded, and asked for advice 

from WFG concerning the issue. Benchmark’s inquiry was referred to Samuel Shellhaas, 

SVP and National Agency Counsel (“Mr. Shellhaas”). Upon information and belief, this 

is the first point in time that WFG knew of issues relating to Benchmark’s mishandling of 

its duties as closing agent of the Transaction.

31. While communicating with Benchmark about the recording of the quitclaim deeds, Silent Storm learned: (a) that Benchmark, in violation of closing instructions 

given to it, had allowed Mr. Collinsworth to take the quit-claim deeds from the Closing; 

(b) that Benchmark had improperly disbursed $59,572.58 to Mr. Collinsworth.

32. In or about May 2016, Silent Storm noticed that Benchmark had collected 

$40.00 on the Closing Statement for “Closing Protection.” 

33. On or about May 20, 2016, Paul Bessent (“Mr. Bessent”), contacted Mr. 

Shellhaas to inquire about the “Closing Protection,” for which Silent Storm had been 

charged on the Closing Statement. In response to Mr. Bessent’s inquiry, Mr. Shellhaas emailed a document (the “WFG CPC Form”) named “Ohio CPC Example.pdf,” a copy of 
Page 9 of 19

2877752.2

which is attached hereto as Exhibit E. This WFG CPC Form is not Form CP-24 that is 

approved by the Ohio Department of Insurance.

34. Among the differences in the WFG CPC Form and Form CP-24 is 

numbered paragraph 1 (“Paragraph 1”). In Form CP-24, Paragraph 1 reads:

1. Theft, misappropriation, fraud or any other failure of the Licensed 

Agent, or anyone acting on the Licensed Agent’s behalf, to properly 

handle and disburse your funds or documents in connection with such 

Closing; or

In the WFG CPC Form, Paragraph 1 reads:

1. Theft, misappropriation, fraud or any other failure of the Licensed 

Agent, or anyone acting on the Licensed Agent’s behalf, to properly 

handle and disburse your funds or documents in connection with such 

Closing to the extent such fraud or dishonesty relates to the status 

of the title to said interest in land or the marketability thereof as 

insured, or to the validity, enforceability, and priority of the lien of 

said mortgage on said interest in land; or

(emphasis added)

35. By adding the additional language to Paragraph 1 of the WFG CPC Form 

that appears in bold in paragraph 34 above (the “Additional Language”), WFG sought to 

effectively eliminate any meaningful protection for the lender in the handling of funds 

relating to the transaction. 

36. The Additional Language had been suggested to the Ohio Department of 

Insurance shortly after the CPC Statute came into effect, but the department rejected the 

Additional Language because it eliminates the protection required by the CPC Statute. 

Instead, since 2008, the Ohio Department of Insurance has mandated the use of Form CP24. Thus, the WFG Form violates the Ohio Revised Code including sections 3953.32 and 
Page 10 of 19

2877752.2

3953.28. Based on WFG’s representation, it has been issuing the illegal WFG CPC Form 

for nearly a decade.

37. On May 22, 2016, Silent Storm submitted a Notice of Claim form to 

WFG, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F, in which Silent Storm reported, 

among other things “Misrepresentations on HUD, Fraudulent POC Line Items, Failure to 

Disclose Disbursements Accurately, and Failure to Secure Quit Claim Deeds.”

38. WFG assigned Silent Storm’s claim to Jesse Cortese (“Mr. Cortese”), 

Claims Counsel.

39. On June 6, 2016, Mr. Cortese wrote an e-mail to Silent Storm, a copy of 

which is attached hereto as Exhibit G, in which he denied the claim and stated that the 

items described in the Notice of Claim do not constitute matters covered under the title 

insurance policy.

40. On June 6, 2016, Mr. Bessent, on behalf of Silent Storm, responded by email to Mr. Cortese, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H, and stated:

Thank you for the response. I am aware that the title policy would not 

have coverage for the items you mentioned. The title policy 

information was provided to give you the information on the properties 

and a reference to the policy provided by WFG. I was not directed to 

any other claim form for the "closing protection" claim.

The "closing protection" sample letter was requested and received 

from WFG. Charges for the coverage are shown on the HUD.

The items described in the NOC were for claims against the "closing 

protection" policy. If there is a different claim form, please forward. 

Please review the claim as a claim against "closing protection"

coverage.
Page 11 of 19

2877752.2

41. On June 8, 2016, Mr. Bessent wrote an e-mail to Mr. Cortese and asked: 

“Will you be able to process claim under ‘closing protection’ with the information you 

now have or is a other [sic] form required?”

42. On June 10, 2016, Mr. Cortese responded by e-mail that “No other forms 

are required.”

43. On June 10, 2016, Mr. Cortese asked Mr. Bessent to send any documents 

supporting Silent Storm’s claim for Closing Protection Coverage, including the Closing 

Statement, any closing protection letters that may apply, and a statement of Silent 

Storm’s claim as it related to Closing Protection Coverage. Moreover, Mr. Cortese stated 

that the claim appeared to relate to a “post-closing matter.”

44. On June 12, 2016. Mr. Bessent responded to Mr. Cortese and sent the 

WFG CPC Form that Mr. Shellhaas had sent to him, attached a copy of the Closing 

Statement, attached a copy of the Joint Check, and described the nature of Silent Storm’s 

claim.

45. On June 20, 2016, Mr. Bessent wrote an e-mail to Mr. Cortese and stated: 

“As we begin the process, would you please determine if WFG issued or there is 

evidence of a letter, policy, certificate, notation or any method in which coverage, as 

outlined in the sample letter [the WFG CPC Form that had been provided to Mr. Bessent 

by Mr. Shellhaas], applied at any time during this transaction?”

46. On June 20, 2016, Mr. Cortese wrote a letter to Mr. Bessent, a copy of 

which is attached hereto as Exhibit I, denying Silent Storm’s claim. As justification, Mr. 

Cortese contended that no Closing Protection Coverage was issued to Silent Storm 
Page 12 of 19

2877752.2

(despite the $40.00 payment for the same), Silent Storm had not submitted any 

documents evidencing Closing Protection Coverage, there was over a one-year delay in 

submitting the claim to WFG (thereby allegedly excluding any Closing Protection 

Coverage that might exist), and Silent Storm’s claim related solely to the quit-claim 

deeds and, therefore, was a post-closing issue.

47. On June 21, 2016, Mr. Cortese wrote to Benchmark, thanking its title 

agent for confirming that Closing Protection Coverage was not issued to Silent Storm.

48. On July 14, 2016, Donald P. McFadden (“Mr. McFadden”), counsel for 

WFG, wrote to Mr. Bessent, instructed that all future communications be directed to him, 

and claimed on behalf of WFG that there was no Closing Protection Coverage issued to 

Silent Storm.

49. By letter dated July 20, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as 

Exhibit J, counsel for Silent Storm wrote to Mr. McFadden and explained in detail the 

improper disbursements from Closing, and that Silent Storm was making a Closing 

Protection Coverage claim.

50. On August 29, 2016, Mr. McFadden wrote to counsel for Silent Storm and 

contended that the “WFG closing protection coverage provided is standard in Ohio. The 

lender, closing protection claim was filed more than a year after the closing. There is no 

closing protection coverage for late claims. The lender provided no written instructions. 

The settlement amounts were correct. The lender received a mortgage which conveyed a 

marketable title: the mortgage was valid and enforceable. There is no title claim.”
Page 13 of 19

2877752.2

51. On or about September 7, 2016, Silent Storm filed a complaint with the 

Ohio Department of Insurance, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit K, which 

detailed the improper disbursements from Closing, Benchmark’s failure to issue Closing 

Protection Coverage, and WFG’s bad faith denial of its Closing Protection Coverage 

claim.

52. By letter dated September 13, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as 

Exhibit L, counsel for Silent Storm wrote to Jeffrey Dodanville, National Claims 

Counsel for WFG, explained in detail the improper disbursements from Closing, and 

demanded that WFG grant Closing Protection Coverage to Silent Storm.

53. By letter dated September 15, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as 

Exhibit M, counsel for Silent Storm wrote to Mr. McFadden and, again, explained in 

detail the improper disbursements from closing, and that Silent Storm was making a 

Closing Protection Coverage claim.

54. By letter dated October 13, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as 

Exhibit N, Mr. Jeffrey S. Leung, Senior Vice President for WFG, responded to the Ohio 

Department of Insurance, and contended:

a. There was no improper act of the agent that related to the status of 

title;

b. There were no written closing instructions;

c. The value of the property is not a covered matter;

d. Silent Storm received a valid mortgage lien on the Properties;

e. Silent Storm’s notice of claim was late;
Page 14 of 19

2877752.2

f. All monies were disbursed in amounts as instructed; and

g. Payments outside of closing are not the title agent’s responsibility.

In this letter, Mr. Leung relies upon Closing Protection Coverage language from the 

WFG CPC Form, and not the Ohio-approved form, CP-24.

55. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been satisfied, 

waived, or have otherwise occurred.

Count 1 – Declaratory Judgment

56. Silent Storm realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 

through 55.

57. This is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 

to determine and declare the rights of the parties with respect to Closing Protection 

Coverage.

58. Silent Storm claims:

a. That Benchmark had the obligation under the CPC Statute to offer 

Closing Protection Coverage to Silent Storm and obtain its election on 

Form CP-24.1;

b. That Benchmark failed to offer Closing Protection Coverage to Silent 

Storm;

c. Had Benchmark offered Closing Protection Coverage to Silent Storm, 

it would have executed Form CP-24.1 and accepted said coverage;

d. That Benchmark charged $40.00 on the Closing Statement for Closing 

Protection Coverage for Silent Storm; and
Page 15 of 19

2877752.2

e. That WFG has the obligation to issue Closing Protection Coverage as 

described in the CPC Statute and Form CP-24 because Silent Storm 

was not afforded the opportunity to elect said coverage and was 

charged for said coverage.

59. WFG disputes Silent Storm’s position and either claims that Silent Storm 

is not entitled to Closing Protection Coverage or that the WFG CPC Form governs this 

dispute and coverage is excluded or otherwise not available under said form.

60. Moreover, WFG contends that any Closing Protection Coverage that 

theoretically could be available to Silent Storm is excluded because Silent Storm 

allegedly failed to give notice of the Closing Protection Coverage claim within one year.

61. Silent Storm claims that its notice of its Closing Protection Coverage 

claim is timely because, alternatively: (a) WFG had notice of closing irregularities in 

August 2015; (b) because Benchmark never issued Form CP-24 (or any other form) to 

Silent Storm, it cannot be charged with the one-year notice requirement stated therein; (c) 

Silent Storm gave notice of the Closing Protection Coverage claim within one year of 

discovering Benchmark’s errors in the Closing; and (d) WFG suffered no prejudice by 

the notice given by Silent Storm.

62. Thus, there are disputes between the parties that constitute bona fide, 

actual, and present controversies. 

63. Silent Storm has a power, privilege, or right that is dependent upon the 

application of law to the facts alleged above.
Page 16 of 19

2877752.2

64. All parties hereto have an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic 

interests in the facts described above. 

65. All persons and entities with an antagonistic or adverse interest in the 

subject of this dispute are before this Court. 

66. The declaration sought pertains to a present, ascertained state of facts or 

present controversy as to a state of facts, as set forth above.

67. Further, the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the 

courts or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity.

WHEREFORE, Silent Storm respectfully requests that this Court:

(a) Declare that WFG must issue Closing Protection Coverage in the form 

mandated by the CPC Statute and Form CP-24;

(b) Declare that the WFG CPC Form violates the CPC Statute and is unlawful 

and unenforceable;

(c) Declare that Benchmark’s inappropriate actions in connection with the 

Closing trigger Closing Protection Coverage provided in Form CP-24;

(d) Declare that WFG must reimburse Silent Storm, pursuant to the terms of 

Form CP-24, for its losses incurred in connection with the Closing;

(e) Declare that WFG handled Silent Storm’s claim in bad faith;

(f) Determine the amount of damages owed to Silent Storm, including 

punitive damages;
Page 17 of 19

2877752.2

(g) Award to Silent Storm its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection 

with pursuing its claims against WFG, and any other and further relief as the 

Court may deem proper.

Count 2 – Breach of Contract

68. Silent Storm realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 

through 67.

69. This is an action for breach of contract resulting in damages exceeding 

$75,000.

70. WFG has breached its obligations under Form CP-24 by, among other 

things, failing to reimburse Silent Storm for its losses incurred in connection with the 

Closing.

71. Silent Storm has been damaged by WFG’s breach of its obligations.

WHEREFORE, Silent Storm respectfully requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against WFG for damages (including without limitation costs of enforcement of the Note 

and Mortgage, and costs of preservation of the Properties), prejudgment interest, 

attorneys’ fees costs, and such other and further relief that this Court deems just and

appropriate.

Count 3 – Bad-Faith Claim Handling

72. Silent Storm realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 

through 71.

73. At all times relevant to this action, WFG had a duty to act in good faith 

and deal fairly with Silent Storm.
Page 18 of 19

2877752.2

74. WFG breached these duties by, among other things, not acknowledging 

Silent Storm’s Closing Protection Coverage, sending the false and misleading WFG CPC 

Form that is not the Ohio-approved form, failing to diligently investigate and respond to 

Silent Storm’s claim, and failing to reimburse Silent Storm for its damages associated 

with the Closing.

75. This bad-faith conduct was undertaken consciously, deliberately, and with 

reckless disregard to the interests of Silent Storm’s rights under the Closing Protection 

Coverage and justifies the award of punitive damages.

76. As a consequence, Silent Storm has suffered actual and reasonably 

foreseeable consequential damages.

WHEREFORE, Silent Storm respectfully requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against WFG for damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees costs, 

and such other and further relief that this Court deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted this 9

th day of February 2018.

/s/ Toby K. Henderson

Toby K. Henderson (0071378)

SEBALY SHILLITO + DYER

A Legal Professional Association

1900 Kettering Tower

40 North Main Street

Dayton, Ohio 45423

(937) 222-2500

(937) 222-6554 (Fax)

thenderson@ssdlaw.com

and
Page 19 of 19

2877752.2

Richard Thomas Petitt, Esq.

PETITT WORRELL ROCHA PLLC

100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3575

Tampa, FL 33602

Rich@petittworrell.com

(813) 603-6300

(813) 603-6301 (fax)

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending