To Be Sued for Barratry in Texas the Court Must Have Jurisdiction
Post 5050
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyqqF_6r ans at https://lnkd.in/gBxwZBCR, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
A LAWYER WHO PAYS OR GIVES OR OFFERS TO PAY OR GIVE A PERSON MONEY OR ANYTHING OF VALUE TO SOLICIT EMPLOYMENT COMMITS BARRATRY IN TEXAS
A lawsuit that involved claims for alleged barratry and conspiracy to commit barratry filed by Appellants against the law firm McClenny Mosley & Associates, PLLC, Texas attorneys James McClenny and Zach Mosley, their Louisiana partner Richard William Huye, III, and Appellee Tort Network, LLC d/b/a Velawcity (“Velawcity”), an Arizona company that executed several Marketing Service Agreements with the law firm to provide advertising and marketing services. An appeal to the Court of Appeals of Texas involved the trial court’s order sustaining Velawcity’s special appearance and dismissing Appellants’ claims against Velawcity for lack of jurisdiction.
In Wayne J. Adams, Bonnie Brown, Claude Britton, III, Curtis Davis, Carey D. Yazeed, Dwane Borel, James S. Dartez, Lloyd Cox And Lynda I. Jenkins v. Tort Network, LLC D/B/A Velawcity, No. 01-24-00169-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (March 18, 2025) the trial court’s ruling was affirmed.
Background of the Case
The Appellants, who are Louisiana residents, alleged that following Hurricane Ida, they were solicited through an illegal barratry scheme that involved Velawcity and the law firm McClenny Mosley & Associates, PLLC (MMA). The Appellants contend that from December 2021 to August 2022, MMA entered into multiple Marketing Service Agreements with Velawcity to provide marketing services, which included prescreening potential clients for legal claims related to the hurricane.
The Appellants asserted that these contracts were executed in Texas and that Velawcity acted as an agent for MMA in soliciting clients unlawfully. They are seeking damages for four acts of barratry allegedly committed against each of them, totaling $360,000.
Jurisdictional Issues
The primary issue was whether the Texas courts have personal jurisdiction over Velawcity. The Appellants argue that Velawcity has sufficient contacts with Texas due to its contracts with MMA, which they claim involved the solicitation of clients in violation of Texas law. They assert that Velawcity’s actions constituted a tort committed in Texas, thus invoking the Texas long-arm statute. In contrast, Velawcity argues that its activities were primarily conducted in Louisiana and that it does not maintain any business presence in Texas, nor did it solicit clients for MMA in Texas.
Velawcity’s Defense
Velawcity filed a special appearance to contest the jurisdiction, asserting that it lacks minimum contacts with Texas necessary for the court to assert jurisdiction. It highlighted that the solicitation occurred in Louisiana and that the Appellants are also Louisiana residents. Velawcity emphasized that it had no physical presence or business operations in Texas, and that any communications regarding the contracts were not sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court ultimately sustained Velawcity’s special appearance, concluding that the Appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient contacts to establish specific jurisdiction in Texas. The court noted that while the contracts were significant, they did not connect Velawcity to Texas in a manner that would justify jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The court affirmed the decision to dismiss the claims against Velawcity for lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that the alleged tortious conduct took place outside Texas and that the Appellants did not provide adequate evidence to establish a substantial connection between Velawcity’s activities and the operative facts of the case.
The Appellants’ claims against Velawcity were dismissed, leaving them to pursue their case against the other defendants, MMA and individual attorneys involved in the alleged Barratry scheme.
ZALMA OPINION
The suit against Velawcity would have had no jurisdictional difficulty if filed in Louisiana but the Plaintiffs could find no contact with Texas, that recognizes a Barratry tort, other than the fact that it signed a contract with MMA which practices in Texas. MMA has been sued multiple times, is in bankruptcy and there is a supposedly active FBI investigation into criminal conduct by MMA and its lawyers. The Plaintiffs, who are residents of Louisiana can be sued separately in Louisiana courts for their alleged misconduct.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
