BROWNSVILLE – The troubles surrounding Kent Livesay seemingly continue to mount, as an insurer recently filed a motion requesting the Texas hail attorney show his authority to represent a man who died six years prior to the filing date of litigation brought on his behalf.
As previously reported, two months ago the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, an arm of the State Bar of Texas, filed a disciplinary petition against Livesay, who allegedly demanded damages from Allstate on behalf of a client he did not represent.
Court records show that on Oct. 12 Republic Lloyds filed a motion to show authority in a Livesay storm suit brought in May on behalf of Maria Estrada and her husband, Raul Barron Jr., who apparently died on July 18, 2010 – six years prior to the filing.
“It is obvious that Plaintiff Raul Barron Jr. could not have engaged in an attorney client relationship with Plaintiffs’ Counsel (Livesay) for a dispute that arose a significant period of time after his death,” the motion states. “This also raises questions on whether Plaintiff Maria Estrada is aware of this lawsuit.”
Republic Lloyds contends the lawsuit is “merely a microcosm” of Livesay’s operating procedure, an opinion based on the insurer’s past experiences with the Edinburg lawyer.
“Along with this lawsuit, Mr. Livesay filed approximately 250 storm damage lawsuits in Texas during the month of May 2016 alone. Livesay currently lists himself as the only practicing attorney at his firm. Simple math indicates that in May this single lawyer firm filed lawsuits at the rate of approximately 8 per day,” the motion states.
“It defies the limitations of a 24-hour day to believe that the Law Offices of R. Kent Livesay can properly retain clients, evaluate the merits of potential cases, and litigate every lawsuit it has filed in Texas courts over the past year.”
When asked for comment, Steven Badger, counsel for Republic, stated that this lawsuit is “typical of the ‘sue first – evaluate later’ mentality that has sadly become commonplace in the filing of hail damage lawsuits.”
Badger, a Zelle LLP attorney, says he routinely sees “hail lawsuits filed with absolutely no investigation of the facts or whether the insurance carrier actually did anything wrong.”
“It’s all about getting as many cases on file as possible and hoping that the insurance companies just bundle them up and pay nuisance value settlements,” Badger said.
“That ain’t gonna happen with my clients any longer. If a lawyer sues my client, the lawyer better be prepared to prove that the case has merit. And the lawyer better also be certain that the case wasn’t signed-up by a roofing contractor, public adjuster, or other case runner.”
Badger advises that all Texas lawyers have an ethical obligation to report knowledge of illegal barratry.
Case background
This case arises out of an insurance claim for alleged property damage resulting from a May 28, 2014 storm.
A decade earlier, in 2003, Republic Lloyds paid to repair damage and replace the roof at the couple’s Brownsville home.
In 2014, their property was again inspected with a reported date of loss of March 20, 2012.
Through the findings of an independent adjuster and statements given by Estrada that the roof had not been replaced after the 2003 loss, Republic Lloyds determined the damages were from the 2003 storm and denied the claim.
The insurer heard nothing further from the plaintiffs until it received an attorney letter of representation from Speights & Worrich – a Texas hail law firm that recently announced it was “significantly downsizing” because of a civil barratry class action filed against the firm.
On Feb. 10, 2015, Republic Lloyds received another property loss notice – this time for roof damage resulting from an alleged May 28, 2014 storm.
The notice was not provided to Republic Lloyds until more than eight months after the alleged hailstorm, court records show.
Also, the insurer was notified, not by the plaintiffs, but by Laura Rodriguez of Stonegate Construction & Restoration (SC&R).
Republic Lloyds acknowledged receipt of the new claim, and began an investigation. On Feb. 24, 2015, after having to reschedule the inspection of the plaintiffs’ residence due to their unavailability, an independent adjuster inspected the premises, the motion states.
Rodger Truit, another SC&R employee, and Estrada were present at the inspection. During which, Estrada could not say if she was represented by an attorney or if any previous claims for damages had been made, noting her husband managed all of their insurance affairs.
Estrada went on to note that Barron, her husband, had passed away 4-5 years prior to the date of the inspection.
On March 5, 2015, Republic Lloyds sent the plaintiffs and SC&R a letter denying payment as the damages were previously indemnified as a result of the 2003 hail event and had not been repaired.
More than a year later, on May 26, Livesay filed suit on behalf of Estrada and Barron against Republic Lloyds, without sending any letter of representation or statutorily required notice.
“In short, Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of a deceased party nearly six years after his death for damages caused by a storm that occurred approximately four years after his death,” the motion states.
“To date, no evidence has been provided to Defendant that an attorney-client relationship exists between either of the Plaintiffs and Livesay, aside from the aforementioned petition for this lawsuit.”
Republic Lloyds maintains the facts surrounding the lawsuit show that the plaintiffs’ claim is part of “the untenable docket” maintained by Livesay.
“It is Defendant’s belief that both the surviving and deceased Plaintiffs are not privy to any events surrounding this lawsuit,” the motion states.
“Accordingly, Defendant requests that Plaintiffs’ Counsel demonstrate his authority to litigate this matter on behalf of Plaintiff Raul Barron Jr. before this Court.”
Livesay did not respond to a request for comment.
Filed in Cameron County District Court, case No. 2016-DCL-03523