Firm News
The Latest News from Aigbe Law
Aigbe Law is a leader in the representation of small and micro-cap companies. The Firm has led it clients through numerous capital raise transaction and over a dozen uplisting and initial public offering transactions. Access the latest news about Aigbe Law, our clients’ business transactions and industry updates here.
Austin, Texas Attorneys Mary-Ellen King and Samantha McCoy obtained a favorable ruling granting a motion to limit attorneys’ fees under 542A, in Larsen Holdings v. ANPAC Louisiana Insurance, et al., Civil Action No. 7:23-cv-00044-M, United States District Court For the Northern District of Wichita Falls (May 20, 2024)
On April 6, 2023, Larsen Plaintiffs filed a petition against ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company (“Defendant”) in state court alleging breach of contact on, unfair or deceptive trade practices, breach of common law duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of Texas Prompt Pay Act. Defendant removed the case to federal court. On February 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, adding three additional policies.
The Plaintiffs failed to file a pre-suit demand on the properties identified in the amended complaint.
Section 542A was adopted in 2017 and applies to first-party claims made against an insurer in claims caused by forces of nature. The statute requires a claimant to provide pre-suit notice to the insurer not later than the 61st day before the date the claimant files suit. If the claimant files to provide a notice, the Court may not award attorneys’ fees incurred after the date the defendant files the pleading with the court. A motion to dismiss the limit the fees for failure to provide notice must be filed not later than the 30th day after the date the defendant files an original answer in the court where the action is pleading.
In the Larsen case, Defendant filed a motion to limit fees within thirty-days of filing an answer to the amended complaint. Plaintiff argued that the deadline to file the motion related back to the original answer date; therefore, the motion was untimely. The Court disagreed with Plaintiffs and granted Defendant’s motion to limit fees related to the three properties named in the amended petition.