Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 1

NO _________________

BISHOP ENVIRONMENTAL 

SERVICES, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PARK WOOD RISK RETENTION 

GROUP, INC.,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

172ND JUDICIAL DISCTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Bishop Environmental Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) in the above-entitled and 

numbered cause, complaining of and against Park Wood Company Risk Retention Group, Inc. (the 

“Defendant” or “Insurer”) and, for causes of action, would respectfully show the Court as follows:

1. FACTUAL SUMMARY

1.1. This suit is brought as a result of the failure or refusal by Powermove Transport, 

LLC (the “Insured”) to pay for the towing, recovery, cleanup, environmental restoration, and 

storage services (the “Services”) that Plaintiff provided to the Insured. 

1.2. Defendant issued the Insured a policy PWR0000176 containing an MCS-90 

endorsement 

1.3. On or about December 22, 2020, a 2005 Freightliner Cascadia 133 with a VIN 

ending 3424 which negligently failed to maintain a single lane, struck a light pole, and rolled onto 

its side (the “Incident”) in Jefferson County, Texas. Plaintiff was ordered by law enforcement to 

provide recovery, towing and vehicle storage services (the “Services”) so that the highway could 

be re-opened. Plaintiff performed the Services in a timely and professional manner and 

subsequently invoiced the Insured. Insurer was aware of the charges as well.

FILED

DISTRICT CLERK OF

JEFFERSON CO TEXAS

9/5/2023 4:22 PM

JAMIE SMITH

DISTRICT CLERK

23DCCV1196

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 35
Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 2

1.4. On July 29, 2021, third-party adjusting firm CBC Claims sent a letter to the Plaintiff 

denying payment for the claim for the Services falsely claiming that only listed vehicles are 

covered. 

1.5. On May 11, 2023, a final judgment against the Insured was signed in the amount 

of $65,152,84 plus postjudgment interest. 

1.6. On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Insurer via standard and 

electronic mail. 

1.7. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s demand for payment for the Services, the Insured and 

Insurer have failed to tender payment even following litigation and judgment. 

2. RULE 190 DESIGNATION

2.1. Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 1 of Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure 190.1.

3. PARTIES AND SERVICE OF CITATION

3.1. Plaintiff, Bishop Environmental Services Inc., is a for-profit corporation with a 

principal place of business in Montgomery County, Texas at the time of the events that form the 

basis of this lawsuit. 

3.2. Defendant Park Wood Risk Retention Group, Inc. is an insurance company and 

resident of the State of Alabama. Park Wood Company Risk Retention Group, Inc. is registered 

with the Alabama Secretary of State and has designated an agent for service with the same. 

Therefore, service of process on Park Wood Risk Retention Group, Inc. may be made by serving 

its registered agent at the address identified below. Plaintiff requests that citation be issued and 

service be accomplished via private process server.

Park Wood Risk Retention Group, Inc.

c/o Gilpin Givhan, P.C.

2660 East Chase Lane

Suite 300

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 36
Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 3

Montgomery, Alabama 36117-7024

4. JURISDICTION

4.1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter and over these parties. 

4.2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. 

4.2.1. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit and within 

the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 

4.2.2. Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c), Plaintiff states that it seeks only monetary relief 

of $250,000 or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney 

fees and costs. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter. 

4.2.3. The nation’s federal courts do not possess subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331 as no federal question is pleaded here. 

4.2.4. The nation’s federal courts do not possess subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332 as Plaintiff seeks relief less than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 

4.3. Personal Jurisdiction. 

4.3.1. Moreover, this Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendant sued 

herein. 

4.3.2. General Personal Jurisdiction. 

4.3.2.1. Defendant, at relevant times, did business in the State of Texas by providing 

goods, products, materials, labor, supervision, and other services to citizens of the State of Texas, 

and thus has had minimum contacts with the State of Texas such that exercise of personal 

jurisdiction over Defendant will comport with due process and traditional notions of fair play and 

substantial justice. Therefore, this Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant. 

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 37
Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 4

4.3.3. Specific Personal Jurisdiction. 

4.3.4. Plaintiff alleges that specific personal jurisdiction exists as to the Defendant 

because the claims asserted herein arise from Defendant’s contacts with the State of Texas. 

Specifically, Defendant availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities (offering insurance 

services) in the State of Texas and purposefully directed conduct into the State of Texas.1 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims herein arise out of and relate to Defendant and its Insured’s actions 

of omission or commission within the State of Texas.2 Due to its involvement with the providing 

services and conducting business in the State of Texas, Defendant has minimum contacts with the 

State of Texas such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it will comport with the 

Constitution and “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”3

4.3.4.1. First, because Plaintiff is a Texas resident and Defendant is registered to 

conduct insurance sales and services in the State of Texas with the Texas 

Department of Insurance, the State of Texas has an interest in adjudicating the 

case in order to protect the safety of its citizens. 

4.3.4.2. Second, Plaintiff, as a resident of the State of Texas, has an interest in 

obtaining convenient and effective relief, and should not have to bring multiple 

suits out of state, far from its home and the state where the incident in question 

occurred, and especially in foreign states; 

1 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1785 (2017) (citing Hanson v. Denckla, 37 U.S. 235, 

253 (1958)); Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142, 159 (Tex. 2013). 

2 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1786 (2017); Helicopteros Nacionales de 

Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984); Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 575-576 

(Tex. 2007).

3 Bristol-Myers, 137 S.Ct. at 1786; Retamco Op., Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Tex. 2009). 

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 38
Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 5

4.3.4.3. Third, the burden on the Defendant to defend itself in Texas is not an undue 

burden, especially given the involvement of it with respect to insurance sales to 

vehicle owners which travel over public roads in the State of Texas.

5. VENUE

5.1. Venue is proper in Jefferson County, Texas under Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas 

Civil Practice and Remedies Code as to Defendant because it is the county in which all or a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. 

5.2. All of Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same occurrence, transaction, or series of 

occurrences or transactions leading to the incident. All of plaintiff’s claims arise from the same 

damages caused the incident. 

6. FACTS

6.1. General Background. Plaintiff brings this suit to recover payment for a judgment 

awarding monetary damages to it following the cleanup of spilled materials by its insured on a 

Texas Highway. On December 22, 2020, Plaintiff was ordered by law enforcement to perform 

recovery, towing, and vehicle storage services at the Crash Scene as a result of the Defendant’s 

Insured’s negligence. The Defendant’s Insured received and accepted the labor, services, and 

materials provided and became bound to pay Plaintiff for the same. The Insured declined to pay, 

was sued, and Plaintiff was awarded a judgment attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. The Defendant is 

now obligated to pay the judgment. 

7. CAUSES OF ACTION

7.1. Count 1 – Liability Under the Form F Endorsement

7.2. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the above paragraphs of this Petition.

7.3. The MCS-90 endorsement on the Insured’s policy creates a reimbursable obligation 

as to final judgments rendered against the named Insured. 

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 39
Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 6

7.4. In this case, Defendant is obligated to pay the final judgment attached hereto against 

the Insured. 

7.5. Therefore, Defendant is obligated to pay the judgment. 

8. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 193.7 NOTICE

8.1. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby gives 

actual notice to Defendant that all documents produced in response to written discovery may be 

used as evidence in this case; and that such materials may be used as evidence against the party 

producing the document at any pretrial proceeding and/or at the trial of this matter without the 

necessity of authenticating the document and/or materials produced in discovery. 

9. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

9.1. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s right to recover the relief sought herein have 

occurred or have been performed. 

PRAYER

9.2. Plaintiff respectfully prays that Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein, 

and that upon final trial, Plaintiff have and recover as follows: 

9.2.1. Judgment against Defendant for its actual damages set forth in the judgment 

attached hereto in the amount of $63,960.00; 

9.2.2. Prejudgment interest as allowed by law at the highest legal rate or as set forth in the 

Judgment attached hereto; 

9.2.3. Post-judgment interest as allowed by law at the highest legal rate or as set forth in 

the Judgment attached hereto; 

9.2.4. Cost of suit; 

9.2.5. Attorney fees and expenses; and

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 40
Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 7

9.2.6. Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly 

entitled. 

Respectfully submitted,

THE WALTERS FIRM, PLLC

By: 

David M. Walters

Texas Bar No. 24056490

david@texastowinglawyer.com

Brian E. Walters

Texas Bar No. 24056489

brian@texastowinglawyer.com

611 W. 14th St.

Austin, TX 78701

Tel. (512) 236-1114

Fax. (512) 236-1292

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 41
Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has this day been delivered by my 

agent via the means described below to each of the following parties in this matter or, as applicable, 

their counsel of record on this 5

th day of September, 2023.

Via facsimile or electronic transmission:

GILPIN GIVHAN, P.C.

2660 East Chase Lane

Suite 300

Montgomery, AL 36117-7024

Tel (334) 244-1111

Fax (334) 244-1969

ATTN: firm@gilpingivham.com

 SIGNED:

 

 David M. Walters

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Exhibit follows.]

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 42
Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 9

EXHIBIT A

JUDGMENT

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 43
Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 10

Copy from re:SearchTX

B HOP E VIRONME1 AL 

ERVICES, INC., 

Plai11tiff, 

v. 

CAU E 0. E-0209758 

FILED 

DISTRICT CLERK OF 

JEFFERSON CO TEXAS 

5/12/2023 9:41 AM 

JAMIE SMITH 

DISTRICT CLERK 

E209758 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

172ND JUDICIAL DI TRICT 

POWERMOVE TRAN PORT LLC, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Defe11da11t. § JEFFERSO COUNTY, TEXAS 

DEFAULT JUDGME 

0 THIS DAY came to be heard in the bench trial in the above-styled and numbered cau e, 

wherein Bishop Environmental Service , Inc. is Plaintiff and Powermove Transport LLC is 

Defendant. Plaintiff appeared and announced ready for trial. Defendant, although having been 

cited on June 30, 2022 to appear and answer, failed to enter a valid appearance and wholly made 

default. 

The Court, after reviewing and considering the Officer's Return on file, the pleadings and 

the official records on file in this Cause, as well as the evidence pre ented by Plaintiff, including 

any evidence attached to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and the declarations filed into 

the record thereafter, i of the opinion that Plaintiff has proved liability against Powennove 

Transport LLC, and that Judgment for liabiLity and damages should be rendered for Plaintif.t: 

Bishop Environmental ervices, Inc., for Plaintill's actual damages, reasonable and necessary 

attorney's fee , expenses, and taxable costs. 

The Court finds that PlaintifT: damage were cau ·ed by Defendant's failure to pay for the 

labor performed and services rendered by Plaintiff for spill cleanup, remediation, and 

Order Gran ring Default Judgment 

Page I of2 

20280 

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 44
Plaintiff’s Original Petition

200280

Page 11

Copy from re:SearchTX

environmental restoration performed on ovember 22, 20 I 9. The pill cleanup, remediation, 

and environmental restoration services were rea onably nece sary following Powermove 

Tran port LLC' failure to control the speed and direction of its Freightliner tractor, which was 

hauling a Wabash ational Corp trailer while loaded with cargo. 

The court finds Plaintifrs actual damage to be 65,835.39, being $58,998.49 for 

hazardous material cleanup removal, dispo al, and intere t, plus $6,863.90 in reasonable and 

necessary attorney's fee , and $556.90 in expense , and$ 556.90 in taxable costs of court. 

It is accordingly ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment be, and 

hereby is, entered in favor of Plaintiff, Bishop Environmental Services, Inc., and again t 

Defendant, Powermove Transport LLC in the amount of $65,835.39 together with post-judgment 

interest in at the rate of 5.5% per annum until paid. 

ORDERED FURTHER, that execution issue for this judgment. 

ORDERED FURTHER, that thi judgment disposes of all parties and all claims, is final, 

and appealable. 

ORDERED F ALLY, that any relief not granted herein is DENIED. 

SIGNED oo th;, //ti d,y of~ : 023 

ruoo,~~ ~~ f' I -,r~~ 

OrdCT Granbng Dc:rault Judgment 

Pa.gc 2 of2 

20280 

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 45
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.

David Walters on behalf of David Walters

Bar No. 24056490

david@texastowinglawyer.com

Envelope ID: 79228749

Filing Code Description: Petition

Filing Description: ORIGINAL PETITION

Status as of 9/5/2023 4:25 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name

Gilpin Givhan

BarNumber Email

firm@gilpingivhan.com

TimestampSubmitted

9/5/2023 4:22:26 PM

Status

SENT

Copy from re:SearchTX

Case 1:23-cv-00364-MAC Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 46