Motion and Order to Force Allstate to pay for a rent car and storage fees while the case on fair market value on a totaled car is litigated. NO. 801,289 JAN KROCKER AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT JOSEPH KROCKER § AT LAW NO. 2 PLAINTIFFS § HARRIS COUNTY, VS. § TEXAS, xxxx, xxxx AKA xxxx, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY § DEFENDANTS § PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR INJUNCTION TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Jan Krocker and Joseph Krocker, plaintiffs, complains of Allstate Property Insurance Company and xxxx, defendants, and for cause of action shows: BACKGROUND On or about August 2, 2003, plaintiff, Joseph Krocker was operating his 2000 Toyota Celica at the intersection of Greenbriar and the south feeder road of U.S. Highway 59, the Southwest Freeway, heading eastbound on the feeder road at 5-10 mph when xxxx aka xxxx’s (“xxxx”) 1995 Toyota Celica ran a red light. Joseph Krocker’s Celica hit the passenger door of the 1995 Celica. Murray was reading a map and failed to stop at the red light at the intersection of the south feeder road and Greenbriar. xxxx was doing 35 mph through the intersection. xxxx received traffic tickets for failure to stop and the red light. See the attached police report, Exhibit “A” page 81 and the witness statement page 80. Plaintiff’s insurance company is AMICA. xxxx’s insurance company is Allstate. xxxx selected an inexpensive policy which does not cover handling claims in an ethical or moral manner. On August 5, 2003, AMICA issued their appraisal report from First Appraisal Claims Service, G. Hagerud. The AMICA report showed the 2000 Toyota Celica was totaled since it had a value of $16,541.70 and the estimate for repair was $9,959.61. See Exhibit “A” pages 68-71. On August 19, 2003, Allstate’s appraiser, Danny Childress finally inspected the 2000 Toyota Celica and found it could be repaired with aftermarket parts and clipping onto the front half a Celica found in Oklahoma from Dan’s Salvage for $3,850.00 plus 25 hours labor. See Exhibit “A” pages 72-76. On August 19, 2003, xxxx informed Dan Krocker that the 2000 Toyota Celica had to be moved at his expense out of Metro Salvage Yard to a body shop of his choice in order to get a rental car during the period that Allstate could further examine the car after it had been taken apart for examination. During this telephone conversation, Dan Krocker informed xxxx that the car would be towed to Freedom Paint and Body on N. Shepherd. On August 19, 2003, the car was towed to Freedom Paint and Body. Dan Krocker called xxxx in the afternoon of August 19, 2003 and informed her that the car was available for inspection at Freedom Paint & Body. On or about August 20, 2003, the Plaintiffs provided written notice of the location of the 2000 Toyota Celica at Freedom Paint and Body Shop. Based upon xxxx’s representations concerning moving the vehicle to get a rental car, Plaintiffs selected Freedom Paint and Body Shop. xxxx provided Plaintiffs with an identification number, 802694 for a rental car since Plaintiffs were pursuing coverage under the Allstate policy and moving the vehicle to Freedom Paint and Body Shop at 4732 N. Shepherd, Houston, Texas 713-692-9800, Fax 713-692-9803. Although Plaintiffs were informed that Allstate was accepting liability, Plaintiffs had not received anything in writing at this time. Allstate has since acknowledge liability (Exhibit “A” pages 51, 120) and acknowledged the car is totaled (Exhibit “A” page 117, 119). After agreeing to provide a rental car and giving Dan Krocker an identification number 802694 for the rental, xxxx cancelled the rental car on August 19, 2003. Upon receipt of a demand letter for breach of contract, DTPA violation and violations under Tex. Ins. Code Art. 21.21, Allstate provided a new rental number for a car allegedly for a 30 day period. For a second time, the rental car was cancelled effective Monday September 15, 2003 when Allstate was unable to bully the Plaintiffs into accepting an amount below the AMICA fair market value calculation. Plaintiffs had been informed by telephone by Celeste C. Land at Allstate that the rental car was cancelled effective Monday, September 15, 2003. After reviewing the file and realizing the promise to provide a rental car for 30 days, Celeste C. Land sent out a letter dated September 12, 2003 stating the rental car would be cancelled on September 17, 2003. Celeste C. Land did not realize the 30 day period had still not run by September 17, 2003 since xxxx had cancelled the first rental agreement. (Exhibit “A” page 119). Allstate paid for a rental car for less than the agreed 30 day period. Allstate often cancels rental cars in hopes of forcing a settlement. On August 22, 2003, Plaintiffs arrived at the Enterprise office at 1112 East Division, Arlington, Texas 76011-7338, (817) 265-5424. Plaintiffs were informed that Allstate had cancelled the rental car. Joe Krocker was left to attend the University of Arlington without transportation. Plaintiffs contend xxxx’s individual tortuous decision to cancel the rental car was a breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and bad faith. Plaintiffs relied on the fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions made by xxxx and Allstate. Plaintiffs’ claims are made for conversion and also under the Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act Sections 17.50(a)(1) Laundry List (Sections 17.46(b)(5), (7), (12), (21) and (23)), breach of express and implied warranties. Allstate and xxxx have breached their common law implied warranty of performing their services in a good and workmanlike manner. Allstate and xxxx’s conduct was also an unconscionable action or course of action against Plaintiffs as that term is defined in Sections 17.45(5)(A) and (B) since Allstate and xxxx took advantage of Plaintiff to a grossly unfair degree and such transaction resulted in a gross disparity between the value received and consideration paid by Plaintiffs. Allstate and xxxx have not only violated the DTPA but also the Tex. Ins. Code Art. 21.21. Plaintiffs are pursuing xxxx individually for her tortuous conduct of canceling the rental car. When a manager behind the veil actively participated in the act leading to liability, there is no need to use piercing and indeed there are relatively few cases involving torts within close corporations. Recent statutes and judicial decisions have extended direct liability further in the direction of vicarious liability by imposing on managers a duty to supervise or monitor. Examples of such liability can be found in a torts context where an officer with a duty to supervise has been held liable for a corporation's copyright infringement even though the officer was without direct knowledge. These results demonstrate some parallel to the responsible corporate officer doctrine in criminal law under which a corporate agent vested with responsibility to devise compliance measures can be convicted upon the corporation's failure to comply with a statute. Under the current case law, the result of individual liability is produced by direct liability for tort, criminal, or regulatory actions. As a service provider, xxxx and Allstate are liable to consumers for misrepresentations under the DTPA since Defendants misrepresented that the service provided was of a particular standard, quality or grade than it really was under 2 Fat Guys Investment Inc. v. Klaver, 928 S.W.2d 268 (Tx.App.-San Antonio 1996). After receiving eight demand letters for breach of contract, DTPA and violations of Tex. Ins. Code Art. 21.21 requesting in writing that Allstate accept liability, xxxx sent a letter stating that “we have accepted liability at 100%.” See Exhibit “A” page 51 and 120. Plaintiffs have sent Defendants nine demand letters. Neither xxxx or Murray are accepting their certified letters. They obviously feel they are untouchable and above the law. Plaintiffs have requested on numerous occasions a copy of the insurance policy in which xxxx is the insured pertaining to this accident. Upon complaining about the diminished value, Allstate miraculously agreed the 2000 Toyota Celica was totaled. (Exhibit “A” pages 117, 119) The parties now have a classic battle of experts concerning the fair market value of the car rather than the repair costs based upon like kind and quality. The fact finders will be required to determine the weight and credibility of these witnesses in Harris County, Texas where Allstate has a bad reputation. Allstate has requested a jury. PLAINTIFFS’ INABILITY TO OBTAIN A RENTAL CAR Since Allstate cancelled the rental car twice, Plaintiffs have obtained a rental car for 30 days under their insurance policy with AMICA. AMICA pays $20 per day and Plaintiffs make up any difference of approximately $3.00 per day pursuant to a rental agreement with Enterprise. Once the 30 day period ends, the Plaintiffs will have difficulty obtaining a rental car. The rental car companies do not rent cars to people under 21 years old. Joseph Krocker is 18 years old. The Plaintiffs’ newest car with the least maintenance problems was the 2000 Toyota Celica. The Plaintiffs’ other cars are a 1996 Toyota Previa Van and a 1993 Toyota Corolla. The Plaintiffs did not want Joseph Krocker to attend school out of town and drive an older model car with maintenance problems. In the event the Plaintiffs are forced to rent a car then either Dan Krocker or Jan Krocker will have to drive the rental car and either the 1993 Corolla or the 1996 Previa Van would have to be sent to Arlington for Joseph Krocker to drive. The Previa vans are no longer manufactured since they do poorly in crash tests and have a roll over problem. The Previa van is not suitable for Joseph Krocker. The 1993 Corolla is not dependable and therefore not suitable for Joseph Krocker. The Plaintiffs received a letter dated September 12, 2003 from Celeste C. Land at Allstate in which Allstate has increased the cost of litigation by having Plaintiffs pay for a rental car and now pay for the wrecker fee to move and store the 2000 Celica at a salvage yard of Plaintiff’s choice. (Exhibit “A” page 119) A rental car and storage costs should be in the neighborhood of $50 to $75 per day. Allstate had previously moved the 2000 Celica from Freedom Paint & Body to a salvage yard of their choice. Obviously, as litigation continues with Allstate’s request for a jury trial, Allstate anticipates offsetting storage and rental costs to any damages awarded in litigation. For instance, the jury could award Plaintiff damages of $20,000 plus costs and legal fees but Allstate may present a charge for storage over the litigation period of 90 days at an inflated amount such as $150 per day for an offset of $13,500.00. If one visits the website, Allstateinsurancesucks.com, you realize Allstate has a tendency to increase the financial pressures on the insureds, the third party claimants pertaining to rental cars, storage fees, and delays in tendering settlement offers. The plaintiffs have and will continue to be damaged and injured by the defendants’ conduct by Defendants’ cancellation of the rental car and the failure to pay storage fees for the wrecked 2000 Toyota Celica which is the subject of this litigation. An applicant for injunctive relief must show it has a probable right to the relief it seeks on final hearing. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 210 (Tex.2002). That is, the applicant must prove it is likely to succeed on the merits of its lawsuit. Tenet Health LTD. V. Zamora, 13 S.W.3d 464, 468-69 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. dism’d). It is not necessary for the applicant to prove it will ultimately prevail. Keystone Life Ins. v. Marketing Mgmt., 687 S.W.2d 89, 92 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985, no writ.). The petition and discovery show a pattern of business practice in which Allstate minimizes it overall payout on claims by using aftermarket parts, clipping, delaying settlements, delaying paying for rental cars and storage to financially squeeze the insured or third party claimant into a low settlement offer. In this case, the Plaintiffs will be unable to rent a car for Joseph Krocker and thereby be forced to either settle cheap or send either the 1993 Toyota Corolla or 1996 Previa Van to Joseph Krocker. The Plaintiffs can not be adequately compensated for putting Joseph Krocker’s safety at risk in driving older vehicles. The applicant for injunctive relief must plead it will suffer a probable injury. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Universal Health Servs. v. Thompson, 24 S.W.3d 570, 577 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.). Probable injury requires a showing that the harm is imminent, the injury would be irreparable, and that the applicant has no other adequate legal remedy. Harbor Perfusion, Inc. v. Floyd, 45 S.W.3d 713, 716 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). It is evident with the fair market value of AMICA that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case. The Plaintiffs want the vehicle replaced. There are plenty of 2000 Toyota Celicas for sale. The Defendants refuse to replace the vehicle and they refuse to meet the fair market value calculations of AMICA. The applicant must plead that, if the injunction is not issued, the harm will occur is irreparable. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d, 198, 204 (Tex.2002); Town of Palm Valley v. Johnson, 87 S.W.3d 110, 111 (Tex.2001). An injury is irreparable if the injured party cannot be adequately compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Canteen Corp. v. Republic of Tex. Props, 773 S.W.2d 398, 401 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, no writ); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mustang Tractor & Equip. Co., 812 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ)(disruption of business can be irreparable harm); Estate of Dilasky, 972 S.W.2d 763, 767 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, orig. proceeding) (costs & delay can be factors of irreparable harm). Joseph Krocker’s irreparable harm is either having not car to drive in Arlington at a commuter school or having the unsafe 1993 Corolla or 1996 Previa Van. The Plaintiff’s currently owe money to the Harris County Federal Credit Union on the Celica. Joseph Krocker worked as the mouse at Chuck E Cheese’s, worked at Men’s Warehouse and First Baptist Church to pay for the Celica. The Plaintiffs can not buy a replacement car. Allstate elected to move the Celica out of Freedom Paint & Body to a salvage yard of their choice. Surely, Allstate should be responsible for storage fees and rental car during the litigation period. The plaintiff must plead there is no adequate remedy at law. Synergy Ctr., LTD. v. Lone Star Franchising, Inc., 63 S.W.3d 561, 567 (Tex. App.-Austin 2001, no pet). For a legal remedy to be adequate, it must give the plaintiff complete, final, and equal relief. See Universal Health, 24 S.W.3d at 577; Henderson v. KRTS, Inc., 822 S.W.2d 769, 773 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). For purposes of injunctive relief, there is no adequate remedy at law if (1) damages cannot be calculated, (2) damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard, or (3) the defendant will be unable to pay damages. See Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204 (reasons 1 & 2); Texas Indus. Gas v. Phoenix Metallurgical Corp., 828 S.W.2d 529, 533 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ)(reasons 1 & 3); Surko Enters., Inc. v. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp., 782 S.W.2d 223, 225 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ). How can monetary damages compensate the Plaintiffs for an election for Joseph Krocker to either do without a car or drive an older model unsafe 1993 Corolla or 1996 Previa Van? Certainly, Allstate’s business plan of jeopardizing the lives of their insureds and third party claimants is an element of punitive damages, but it does not compensate the victims for the daily risks they are currently being subjected to. See Exhibit “A” pages 124-163 for a summary of complaints on automobile insurance coverage for 2003. What is the hedonic value of peace of mind that an 18 year old boy is driving a safe vehicle? What is the point of parents getting an education if they can not provide their children a safe environment? “To be entitled to a temporary injunction, the movant must show: (1) a probable right of recovery, (2) imminent, irreparable harm in the interim, (3) no adequate remedy at law. “ Matagorda Cty Hsp. Dist. v. City of Palacios, 47 S.W.3d 96, 103 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). “The function of a temporary injunction is obviously to preserve the status quo, or the ‘last, actual, peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.’ While that is the function of a temporary injunction, the preservation of the status quo is not per se a basis for its issuance. It may issue in cases of this kind only on a showing by the applicant of a probable injury and a probable right to recover after final hearing.” Crestview LTD. v. Foremost Ins. Co., 621 S.W.2d 816, 827-28 (Tex.App.-Austin 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The application for TRO must include a request for a temporary injunction. See TRCP 680. Plaintiffs request a TRO and injunction preventing Allstate from canceling the rental car. Plaintiffs request the court order Allstate furnish the rental car pursuant to their prior agreement and pay all storage costs of the Celica. The application for TRO must state the applicant’s willingness to post bond. TRCP 684. Plaintiffs are willing to post bond. Plaintiffs feel a bond of $100.00 is sufficient given the inequitable conduct of Allstate and xxxx. The plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries just described. The injuries and losses are continuing. The property and rights involved are unique and irreplaceable, so that it will be impossible to accurately measure, in monetary terms, the damages caused by the defendant's conduct. For the reasons stated in this pleading and the original petition , the plaintiffs request that, after trial, this Court permanently enjoin the defendant from failing to provide a rental car and paying storage costs on the Celica for the duration of litigation through appeals. In order to preserve the status quo and the property and rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of this action, defendant should be cited to appear and show cause why Allstate and xxxx should not be temporarily restrained, during the pendency of this action, from failing to provide a rental car at the daily rate previously provide of $26 per day and paying all storage costs on the Celica. Prayer for Relief For these reasons, plaintiffs requests that: 1. A temporary restraining order by issued to defendants, Allstate and xxxx , restraining defendants from failing to provide a rental car and failing to pay storage costs for the Celica. A temporary injunction be issued, after notice to defendant and an evidentiary hearing, restraining defendants, Allstate Insurance and xxxx from failing to provide a rental car and failing to pay storage costs for the Celica during the pendency of this action. 3. A permanent injunction be issued, on final trial of this cause, enjoining defendants, Allstate Insurance and xxxx from failing to provide a rental car and failing to pay storage costs for the Celica during the pendency of this action. 4. Reasonable Legal fees of $2,100.00; and 5. Such other and further relief to which plaintiffs may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Dan Krocker, CPA Attorney at Law 710 North Post Oak Road, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77024-3812 (713) 683-0397 Fax (713) 683-0398 TBA 11728300 Attorney for Plaintiff Jan Krocker and Joseph Krocker ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE I, Dan Krocker, am the attorney for Jan Krocker and Joseph Krocker, Plaintiffs. When the dispute pertaining to providing a rental car and paying storage costs underlying this motion arose, I made a good faith effort to resolve the matter with opposing counsel, Tim Bowersox, without invoking the aid of the Court. I called Camille at Hope & Causey. I was informed Tim Bowersox was the attorney in charge of this case. I explained my problem with the rental car and storage costs to Camille. I have not heard from any attorney at Hope & Causey concerning this motion. We were unable to come to any resolution of the matter. Dated September 30, 2003 Dan Krocker, CPA Attorney at Law 710 North Post Oak Road, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 683-0397 Fax (713) 683-0398 TBA 11728300 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded to Defendants’ Counsel, Tim Bowersox, John M. Causey, Hope & Causey, PC, 2040 North Loop, 336 West, P.O. Box 3188, Conroe, Tx 77305, camille@hope-causey.com by Lone Star Delivery and e-mail on this September 30, 2003. Dan Krocker NO. 801,289 JAN KROCKER AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT JOSEPH KROCKER § AT LAW NO. 2 PLAINTIFFS § HARRIS COUNTY, VS. § TEXAS, xxxx, xxxx AKA xxxx, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY § DEFENDANTS § AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF HARRIS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State of Texas, on this day, personally appeared Dan Krocker, Attorney for Plaintiff, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to this Affidavit and who, after being duly sworn and put upon his oath, did testify as follows: 1. "My name is Dan Krocker. I am over twenty-one (21) years, and my office address is 710 North Post Oak Road, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77024-3812. I have never been convicted of a criminal offense, and am fully competent to testify. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and they are all true and correct. My personal knowledge is derived from personal participation, involvement and witnessing the facts described in this affidavit and/or from a review of records kept in the ordinary course of business by one with personal knowledge of the facts contained herein made at or reasonably soon after the occurrence of the facts contained therein." 2. "I am an attorney licensed by the Supreme Court of the State of Texas to practice law in Texas, have been so licensed since 1980, and am engaged in the private practice of law in Houston, Harris, Texas. Plaintiff demanded payment of this claim from defendants more than thirty (30) days before attempting to take judgment in this cause." 3. Dan Krocker made several attempts to have the Celica replaced or in the alternative collect damages from Defendants. I have spent 12 hours on this Motion for Injunction pertaining to providing a rental car and paying storage. My hourly billable rate is $175.00. 4.. $2,100.00 would be a reasonable fee for the above-described services performed in this cause. The fee is reasonable, ordinary, customary and the usual fee charged in breach of contract matters in Harris County, Texas. Respectfully submitted, Dan Krocker Affiant Attorney for Plaintiff 710 North Post Oak Road, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77024-3812 (713) 683-0397 TBA #11728300 SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, on this the 30th day of September, 2003. Notary Public in and for the State of Texas Printed Name of Notary My Commission Expires: VERIFICATION STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF HARRIS § Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Dan Krocker, attorney for the Plaintiffs, Jan Krocker and Joseph Krocker, who, after being duly sworn, stated under oath that he is the attorney for the Plaintiffs in this action; that he has read the above Motion for Injunction; and that every statement contained in the Motion is within his personal knowledge and is true and correct. "As a part of my duties, I am the custodian of the Plaintiff's business records which includes the claims which are the subject of this suit. In the course of my employment, I have become familiar with this particular loan and with the manner and method in which Plaintiff maintains its books and records in the normal course of its business. Plaintiff keeps these books and records in the regular course of its business. It is the regular course of business of Plaintiff for an employee with personal knowledge of each transaction or event to make a records of the transaction or event. These books and records are maintained by employees and agents of Plaintiff whose duty it is to maintain books and records accurately and completely; and, they are made at or near the time of the event in question." "Exhibit "A" contains true and correct copies of the original documents. Exhibit "A" has been maintained in the regular course of business by the Plaintiff and it was the regular course of business of the Plaintiff with personal knowledge of these documents and the information contained therein to record them in the records of the Plaintiff or to transmit information thereof to be included in the records of the Plaintiff. These records of the Plaintiff were made at or near the time of the acts, events and conditions therein recorded or reasonably soon thereafter." Dan Krocker, Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on September ____, 2003, to certify which witness my hand and official seal. [Seal] ________________________________ [signature] _______________________________ [typed name] Notary Public in and for the State of Texas My Commission expires _____ [date] EXHIBIT "A" Demand ltr 8/20/03, request for FMV calculation 1 Demand Ltr 8/22/03, DTPA and bad faith 3 Demand Ltr 8/27/03, two law review articles on bad faith 6 Demand Ltr 8/28/03, notice of lack of response to inspect vehicle 7 Demand Ltr 8/30/03, notice to state legislators 9 Demand Ltr 8/30/03, refusal to clip or use aftermarket parts 14 Demand ltr 9/4/03, Request for Agent for Service 38 Demand Ltr 9/6/03, Diminished Value Calculation 40 Ltr 9/9/03 from Atty General, Greg Abbott, on Allstate’s Illegal Activities 46 Demand ltr 9/9/03 on Allstate’s Illegal activities to Office of Public Ins. Counsel 48 Allstate Ltr 9/8/03 accepting liability 51 Autostrade list of options available on 2000 Toyota Celica 52 Autostrade Comparable Values 54 Texas Administrative Code Notice Requirement 58 Exxon Summary of Maintenance Records 60 60,000 mile warranty work 63 AMICA letter 8/5/03 on rental car and appraisal 66 AMICA letter 8/13/03 on Allstate accepting liability 67 AMIA’s First Appraisal Claims Service 8/5/03 68 Allstate 8/19/03 Appraisal by Danny Childbeds 72 AMIA’s calculation of F.V. from NADA Guide 77 AMIA’s calculation of F.V. from Auto Trader 78 Witness Report from Walter Weathers III 80 Police Report 81 Demand Ltr 09/13/03 to TDM 84 Los Angeles Times Article on Clipping 05/13/99 86 AMIA’s copy of NADA book on Vehicle 88 Allstate Ltr 8/6/03 92 Allstate Ltr 8/11/03 94 Gary O’BRIEN’s Expert Report 95 HB. No. 120, Effective 9/1/03 96 CBS Evening News on Allstate’s Illegal Activities 12/27/02 98 Article on Clipping 02/18/93 102 Consumer Reports on Aftermarket Parts 105 Allstate Letter 9/11/03 117 Representative Corbie Van Arsdale Letter 9/12/03 118 Allstate Letter 9/12/03 119 Allstate Letter 9/13/03 120 Krocker Demand Letter 9/13/03 to DMV 121 Allstate Letter 9/22/03 123 Summary of Automobile Insurance Complaints for 2003 124 Dan Krocker, CPA Attorney at Law 710 North Post Oak Road, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 683-0397 Fax (713) 683-0398 September 30, 2003 Beverly Kaufman Harris County Clerk 301 Fannin 1st Flr Houston, Tx 77002 Re: Case No. 801,289, Jan Krocker and Joseph Krocker v. xxxx, xxxx AKA xxxx, and ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, in the County Court at Law, Harris, Texas Gentlemen: Plaintiff, Jan Krocker and Joseph Krocker, hereby requests an oral hearing on its Motion for Injunction in the courtroom of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, and the same is set for an oral hearing at 9:00 a.m. Thursday October 9, 2003 in the courtroom of Harris County Court at Law No. 2, Civil Courthouse, 301 Fannin, Houston, Texas 77002. I am enclosing the following documents: 1. Plaintiff's Request for Hearing. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction with Affidavit and Exhibits Sincerely, Dan Krocker NO. 801,289 JAN KROCKER AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT JOSEPH KROCKER § AT LAW NO. 2 PLAINTIFFS § HARRIS COUNTY, VS. § TEXAS, xxxx, xxxx xxxx AKA GRETCHEN MURRAY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY § DEFENDANTS § NOTICE OF HEARING You are hereby notified that plaintiffs, Jan Krocker and Joseph Krocker have set their Motion for Injunction for an oral hearing on 9:00 o'clock a.m., on Thursday the 9th day of October, 2003, in the courtroom of the Harris County Court at Law No. 2, Civil Courthouse, 301 Fannin, Houston, Texas 77002. Respectfully submitted, Dan Krocker Attorney for Plaintiff 710 North Post Oak Road, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77024-3812 (713) 683-0397 Fax (713) 683-0398 TBA #11728300 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded to Defendants’ Counsel, Tim Bowersox, John M. Causey, Hope & Causey, PC, 2040 North Loop, 336 West, Suite 125, P.O. Box 3188, Conroe, Tx 77305, camille@hope-causey.com by Lone Star Delivery and e-mail on this September 30, 2003. Dan Krocker NO. 801,289 JAN KROCKER AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT JOSEPH KROCKER § AT LAW NO. 2 PLAINTIFFS § HARRIS COUNTY, VS. § TEXAS, xxxx, xxxx AKA xxxx, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY § DEFENDANTS § ORDER FOR INJUNCTION After considering plaintiffs’ motion for injunction, the response, and affidavits, the court FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Defendants have wrongfully breached their agreement to furnish a rental car in hopes of causing financial pressure on Plaintiffs’ to settle, and the Defendants will continue to engage in wrongful conduct if the court does not grant an injunction. 2. If the court does not order defendants to be enjoined from canceling the rental car and paying storage fees on the 2000 Celica, plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury. 3. The injury is irreparable because Joseph Krocker is unable to rent a car under his name and therefore his parents will have to rent a car and provide Joseph with one of the older, less safe family automobiles. 4. Defendants will not suffer undue hardship or loss as a result of the issuance of an injunction. For these reasons, the court ORDERS that defendants, xxxx and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company continue to provide Joseph Krocker with a rental car as previously provided up to a $26 daily rate and pay all storage costs on the 2000 Toyota Celica through the entire litigation period including all appeals. The court further ORDERS that plaintiff post a bond in the amount of $ _______. The court further orders the Defendants, xxxx and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, pay Plaintiff’s counsel $2,100.00 within 5 business days in legal fees for filing this Motion for Injunction. SIGNED on October _____, 2003. ________________________ JUDGE APPROVED & ENTRY REQUESTED: ________________________________ Dan Krocker Attorney for Plaintiff 710 North Post Oak Road, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77024-3812 (713) 683-0397 Fax (713) 683-0398 TBA #11728300 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded to Defendants’ Counsel, Tim Bowersox, John M. Causey, Hope & Causey, PC, 2040 North Loop, 336 West, Suite 125, P.O. Box 3188, Conroe, Tx 77305, camille@hope-causey.com , (936) 441-4673, Fax (936) 441-4674, by CMRRR 7003 1680 0001 4503 1214 and e-mail on this October 8 , 2003. Dan Krocker