United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
McBRYDE United States District Judge
for consideration the motion of plaintiffs, Peter and Mary
Pelletier, to abstain and remand. The court, having
considered the motion, the response of defendant Allstate
Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
("Allstate"}, the record, and applicable
authorities, finds that the motion should be denied.
January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed their original petition in
the 141st Judicial District Court of Tarrant
County, Texas, against Allstate and William Walter Saari, Jr.
("Saari"). Doc. 9. They allege that Allstate engages in
the business of insurance and that Saari engages in the
business of adjusting insurance claims. Doc. 9, pet. at
¶¶ 5-6. They do not allege that Saari owed them any
duty under the insurance policy or that he had the authority
to bind Allstate with regard to the insurance policy.
only specific factual allegations with regard to Saari are as
15. Allstate assigned or hired Saari to adjust the claim.
a. Saari had a vested interest in undervaluing the claims
assigned to him by Allstate in order to maintain his
employment. The disparity in the number of damaged items in
his report compared to that of Plaintiffs' [sic] is
evidence of fraud on the part of Saari. The valuation of
damages that were included in Saari's report compared to
Plaintiffs' is also evidence of fraud on the part of
b. Furthermore, Saari was aware of Plaintiffs' deductible
before visiting the Property to conduct the inspection. Saari
had advanced [sic] knowledge of what amount of damages he
needed to find in order to underpay the claim.
c. Saari made misrepresentations as to the amount of damage
Plaintiffs' Property sustained as well as
misrepresentations regarding how much it would cost to repair
the damage to Plaintiffs' Property.
d. Saari and or Allstate used their expertise to fabricate
plausible explanations for why visible damage to
Plaintiffs' Property would not be covered under the
policy. Such misrepresentations include damage to the
Property owing from cosmetic damage.
17. . . . Saari found that the roof only had cosmetic damage
which was excluded by the policy. Saari wrongfully made no
adjustments for the damage done to the DECRA interlocking
Doc. 9, pet. ¶¶ 15, 17.
assert claims against defendants for violations of Chapters
541 and 542 of the Texas Insurance Code, for violation of the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex.
Bus. & Com. Code §§ 17.41-.63
("DTPA"), and fraud. They also sue Allstate for
breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and ...