HOUSTON – Earlier this month, a sanctions hearing was held in a Hurricane Harvey lawsuit against the Texas Fair Plan Association.
Court records show that on Aug. 17 the trial court granted the insurer’s motion, finding that the plaintiff, his expert witnesses and his counsel have prevented essential discovery from taking place by failing to observe proper procedures during depositions – “calculated” actions that “flagrantly violated the ethical standards found in the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and Texas Lawyer’s Creed.”
Seeking up to $100,000 in damages, plaintiff Harvey Guidry filed suit against the TFPA in Harris County, alleging the insurer “failed to properly adjust” his claim for property damages.
Guidry’s suit is very similar to the hundreds of other lawsuits his lawyer, Eric Dick, has brought against insurance companies.
The Record has previously reported on several of Dick’s cases and his exploits, which includes the attorney trolling for clients following an explosion at the Watson Grind facility in Spring Branch, which occurred back in January 2020.
Dick, along with Billy Bray, an insurance agent, hosted a series of town hall meetings for residents impacted by the blast.
Bray has been named as an expert witness in Guidry’s lawsuit against TFPA, according to records.
Court records also show Dick named Ray Choate, an appraiser who has been used by other storm attorneys, and Matt Morgan, an adjuster who ran for Texas House with money supplied by storm attorneys, as experts.
The issue of expert witnesses took center stage in the sanction battle between the parties in Guidry’s suit.
On May 26, TFPA filed a motion for sanctions because of the plaintiff’s “blatant disregard” of a court’s order compelling him to produce eight expert witnesses for deposition, court records show.
The motion states Choate is “routinely appointed by the Dick Law Firm as its clients’ appraiser in dozens of disputes involving TFPA claims.”
TFPA also asserts that Morgan, “an alleged ‘bad faith’ witness,” was coached and the deposition was unable to be completed.
“Indeed, (the) coaching was so effective the witness began lodging his own objections to proper questions,” the motion states.
On June 8, Guidry filed a counter motion for sanctions, accusing TFPA’s attorney of intimidation and abusive harassment – “behavior” that “begs for sanctions.”
The court found that the plaintiff’s counsel “knew that forced cancellation” of the depositions would “delay” the proceedings “and cause needless expense.”
“The clear intent behind Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct was to influence the discovery process by impeding access to discoverable information and to improperly influence witness behavior,” states the court’s order granting TFPA’s motion for sanctions.
TFPA is represented by Beaumont attorney James R. Old, Jr., a Hicks Thomas attorney.
Case No. 1136776