IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN ...

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

GALVESTON DIVISION

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY §
INSURANCE COMPANY, §
§
Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. _____________
§
v. §
§
ANDY HOUSE AND LLOYD §
GILLESPIE, §
§
Defendants. §

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”) files this Original

Complaint against Defendants Andy House and Lloyd Gillespie for declaratory judgment and

respectfully shows the Court the following:

I.

PARTIES

1.1 Plaintiff Philadelphia is a corporation duly formed and existing under the laws of

the State of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.

1.2 Defendant Andy House is an individual who resides and may be served at 295

Lone Oaks Dr., Lufkin, Texas 75901 or wherever he may be found.

1.3 Defendant Lloyd Gillespie is an individual who resides and may be served at

Rural Road 4 8580, Nacogdoches, Texas 75964 or wherever he may be found. Alternatively,

Defendant Gillespie has been known to reside at 4314 Mystic Lane, Nacogdoches, Texas 75965.

II.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 2 of 16

2.1 Venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division under 28
U.S.C. §1391(a).

2.2 Subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)
because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest or
costs, and is between citizens of different States.

2.3 Personal jurisdiction exists in this matter both generally and specifically.
III.

NATURE OF THE ACTION
3.1 This is an insurance coverage dispute over Philadelphia’s duty to pay for damage
to a 2006 Bugatti Veyron incurred as a result of being driven into a lagoon and submerged in
three feet of saltwater near Galveston by Defendant Andy House on November 11, 2009. The
Bugatti Veyron is one of the word’s fastest and most expensive supercars and extremely rare.
Defendant Andy House filed a claim under his Philadelphia collector vehicle insurance claiming
a loss to his 2006 Bugatti Veyron three weeks after taking possession of it. Defendant Lloyd
Gillespie, an associate of Mr. House, financed - for free - the purchase of this vehicle and is
designated a loss payee on the insurance policy creating a potential claim to the proceeds.
3.2 Upon extensive investigation, it is Philadelphia’s belief that Andy House, with the
full knowledge of Lloyd Gillespie, intentionally drove the Bugatti into the lagoon to destroy the
car and collect insurance proceeds approximately twice the value of the vehicle. Philadelphia
seeks a declaratory judgment that the incident was not accidental and therefore not a covered loss
under the insuring agreement or, alternatively, it was a fraudulent conspiracy to wrongfully
obtain insurance proceeds which is therefore not payable.

2

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 3 of 16

3.3 Further, Philadelphia’s investigation further revealed in his three weeks of
possessing the vehicle Mr. House had driven it over 1,200 miles, including: using it for errands;
secondary transportation; business trips; business functions; and driving to and from work. On
the day of the accident Mr. House was driving errands when he wrecked the vehicle.
Philadelphia seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant Andy House’s use of the vehicle was
outside the scope of a “collector vehicle” as defined by the policy and therefore is not covered.

3.4 Lastly, Defendant Andy House represented to Philadelphia that the 2006 Bugatti
Veyron, as well as a previously insured 2003 Ferrari Enzo, would be used solely for hobby
purposes and exhibition. Unbeknown to Philadelphia, Mr. House instead purchased these
vehicles for his business, Performance Auto Sales – a car dealership, to be resold for a profit.
This was done with the full knowledge of Lloyd Gillespie. Had the truth been disclosed to
Philadelphia it would not have written a collector vehicle policy for a business that sells cars.
Philadelphia seeks a declaratory judgment it had the right to rescind the policy based on the
intentional, material misrepresentations made in the application indicating that these vehicles
were to be used solely for hobby or exhibition purposes.

3.5 In the alternative, if the Court finds that either Andy House or Lloyd Gillespie are
entitled to funds from this Policy as a result of the damage to the Bugatti, Philadelphia seeks a
declaration from this Court as to the amount owed to each Defendant.

IV.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Summary of Declaratory Judgment Relief
4.1 Defendants’ insurance claim, as set forth above, has resulted in an actual
controversy entitling Philadelphia relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C.

3

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 4 of 16

§2201. Specifically, Defendants’ conduct requires this Court to resolve the uncertainty as to the

legal rights, status, and relations created by the Insurance Policy.

4.2 Philadelphia requests that the Court declare the following:

I. Not a Covered Loss/Fraud: The damage to the Bugatti as a result of the Incident
is not a covered loss under the insuring agreement because it was not an
“accidental loss.” Additionally, the damage to the Bugatti as a result of the
Incident is not a covered loss because it was the result of fraudulent conduct in
connection with an accident or loss for which coverage is sought under this
policy.

II. Not a Covered Loss: The damage to the Bugatti as a result of the Incident is not
a covered loss under the insuring agreement because it was not used as a
“collector vehicle” as defined in the Auto Usage Endorsement. Therefore,
Philadelphia is not obligated to pay Mr. House or Mr. Gillespie for any direct and
accidental loss to the Bugatti as a result of the Incident.

III. Rescission: The Policy is rescinded for material misrepresentations made by
Andy House in obtaining collector vehicle insurance for the Ferrari Enzo and
Bugatti. Further, the material misrepresentations were made with the full
knowledge of Lloyd Gillespie and therefore the Loss Payable Clause is likewise
rescinded.

IV. Value of the Loss: The value of the loss to the Bugatti.

Summary of the Policies at Issue

4.3 Philadelphia issued a collector vehicle insurance policy to Andy House, Collector

Vehicle Insurance Policy Number GD20057880-00, with a policy period from 07/14/2009 to

07/14/2010 (hereinafter the “Policy”). The Policy contains a Loss Payable Clause endorsement

stating that the Loss Payee is Lloyd Gillespie. The Policy listed a 2003 Ferrari Enzo as a vehicle

covered by this Policy.

4.4 On October 1, 2009, Philadelphia issued a policy change document for the Policy

adding a 2006 Bugatti Veyron (the “Bugatti”) to the Policy. This document was attached to the

Policy. During the application process, Mr. House reported that the vehicle had 456 miles on it

as of October 1, 2009. Mr. House further submitted and obtained an agreed value of $2,200,000.

4

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 5 of 16

I. NOT A COVERED LOSS/FRAUD: POLICY ONLY PROVIDES FOR ACCIDENTAL LOSS
A. Background Facts
4.5 Approximately a month after taking possession of the Bugatti, on November 12,

2009 an Accord Automobile Loss Notice was submitted to Philadelphia stating that the Insured,
Andy House, “swerved to avoiding hitting a pelican in Galveston and the IV went off the road
and into a lagoon – extent of damage unknown” (the “Incident”).

4.6 The crash was widely reported in the press due to the nature of the vehicle
involved as well as having been caught on film by a person driving next to the Bugatti at the time
of the crash and subsequently posted to www.youtube.com.

4.7 Upon receiving notice of the claim, Philadelphia conducted an extensive
investigation into the events and circumstances surrounding the incident.

4.8 An initial interview was conducted on the day of the incident in which Mr. House
stated that he was driving back from Galveston when he reached down to pick up his dropped
cell phone. Upon looking up, he saw something large coming at him and swerved off the road,
hitting some boulders causing him to submerge his Bugatti Veyron in three feet of salt water.
He was uninjured in the crash.

4.9 As a result of the claim, Philadelphia requested documentation from Mr. House to
further investigate the Incident, interviewed numerous persons related to the Incident and Mr.
House, and has taken an examination under oath of Mr. House and another witness Joe Garza.

4.10 Philadelphia during the course of its investigation determined that Mr. House
purchased the Bugatti Veyron for $1,050,000 using an interest free loan from his friend and
business associate Lloyd Gillespie. Mr. Gillespie had been named as the Loss Payee on the

5

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 6 of 16

policy. The purchase amount was far less than the vehicle’s insured amount of $2,200,000
obtained by Mr. House.

4.11 Additionally, Philadelphia learned that the wreck had been filmed by another
vehicle driving parallel to the Bugatti Veyron on the freeway. The passenger in that vehicle who
video taped the wreck is Joe Garza. The video footage shows the Bugatti Veyron veering off of
a feeder road and into a lagoon. No obvious motions to correct the course of the vehicle could be
seen and it does not appear that Mr. House ever used the brakes to stop the vehicle before
entering the water. Additionally, the video does not appear to confirm that a pelican was in Mr.
House’s immediate field of vision. Mr. Garza confirmed this information when he testified that
he did not see a pelican (or other bird) in the area. He also testified that he did not see Mr. House
drop the phone and Mr. House did not appear distracted at the time of the crash. According to
Mr. House, he was unaware of being videotaped at the time of the Incident.

4.12 Other evidence indicated that no skid marks were found at the scene of the
Incident. Additionally, reports from witnesses at the scene stated that Mr. House did not appear
overly upset at the loss of the vehicle.

4.13 It was also reported that Mr. House left the vehicle running for over fifteen
minutes while it was submerged until it died on its own causing unnecessary damage to the
vehicle’s engine. Defendant House confirmed this fact and attributed leaving the vehicle running
because he was being bitten by mosquitoes around the vehicle. The above facts alone raised the
strong suspicion of Philadelphia’s investigators that the Incident was intentional.

4.14 However, more recently a confidential informant came forward and reported
additional facts indicating fraud in this matter. The confidential informant stated that Mr. House
offered to pay him money to steal the car and burn it making the disappearance of the vehicle

6

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 7 of 16

appear to be a theft so that Mr. House could obtain the insurance money. However, apparently
Mr. House instead drove the car into the lagoon without the confidential informant’s assistance.
Once the confidential informant confronted Mr. House, Mr. House offered to pay the
confidential informant a portion of the insurance proceeds once recovered to remain silent during
the investigation. The confidential informant indicated that he believed Mr. House and Mr.
Gillespie acted in coordination in this matter. It is Philadelphia’s position based on its
investigation that Mr. House and Mr. Gillespie acted together to defraud Philadelphia of
$2,200,000.

B. The Policy Language
4.15 The insuring agreement for Part D – Coverage for Damage to Your Auto states as
follows:
We will pay for direct and accidental loss to “your covered auto” or any “non-owned auto”,
including their equipment, minus any applicable deductible shown in the Declarations. …
4.16 Under Part F – General Provisions, the Policy states as follows:
Fraud
We do not provide coverage for any “insured” who has made fraudulent statements or
engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with any accident or loss for which coverage
is sought under this policy.
C. Declaratory Judgment Relief
4.17 Philadelphia seeks a declaration from this Court that under the terms, exclusions,
definitions and/or conditions of the Policy there is no coverage afforded by the Policy for the
Incident on November 12, 2009.
4.18 The Policy’s insuring agreement under “Part D – Coverage for Damage to Your
Auto” provides that Philadelphia “will pay for direct and accidental loss to ‘your covered auto’,
including their equipment, minus any applicable deductible shown in the Declarations.” Under

7

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 8 of 16

Part F – General Provisions, the Policy states that Philadelphia does “not provide coverage for
any ‘insured’ who … engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with any accident or loss for
which coverage is sought under this policy.”

4.19 As indicated above, Mr. House intentionally drove the Bugatti into the lagoon on
the day of the Incident. Philadelphia asserts that this was done as part of a conspiracy with
Lloyd Gillespie to defraud Philadelphia of insurance proceeds potentially payable for damage to
the Bugatti. As a result of the intentional and/or fraudulent acts of Andy House and Lloyd
Gillespie, the damage to the Bugatti is not a covered loss under either Part D or Part F of the
Policy.
II. NOT A COVERED LOSS: INSURING AGREEMENT LIMITED TO “COLLECTOR VEHICLES”

A. Background Facts
4.20 In addition to the intentional and fraudulent conduct above, the investigation
further revealed that over the course of the month Mr. House possessed the 2006 Bugatti Veyron
he had driven the vehicle excessively, including: using it for errands; secondary transportation;
business trips; business functions; and driving to and from work. In the month Mr. House
possessed the car he drove it two and a half times more than the previous owner had driven it in
three years, approximately 1,200 miles in total.
4.21 In the time he possessed the vehicle, he drove it to Galveston for a biker rally, he
had driven the car around Austin (including to a bar and a restaurant), he drove the car in
between his home in Lufkin to Nacogdoches and back, he drove the car to work, he may have
driven the car to Houston and he lent it out for Lloyd Gillespie, and additional friends, to drive it
as well.

8

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 9 of 16

4.22 On the day of the accident Mr. House had driven the vehicle from Lufkin, Texas
to a friend’s place outside of Houston. He then proceeded to a Taco Cabana for breakfast
followed by a shopping errand to a Sprint store to buy a battery charger. After the Sprint store he
drove into Galveston, Texas. It has been reported in the news and by witnesses to the Incident
that Mr. House stated he was in Galveston to look at commercial property presumably for
business. After driving around Galveston he stopped at a Wing Stop for lunch. After leaving
Wing Stop he proceeded on another errand to a boat marina to look at purchasing a boat just
before the accident. It was on the I-45 feeder road attempting to exit to go to the Marina that Mr.
House wrecked his car. Mr. House apparently was attempting to access his GPS device on the
phone to find the marina when he dropped the phone causing him to lose control of the car.

B. The Policy Language
4.23 The insuring agreement for Part D – Coverage for Damage to Your Auto states as
follows:
We will pay for direct and accidental loss to “your covered auto” or any “non-owned auto”,
including their equipment, minus any applicable deductible shown in the Declarations. …
4.24 The Policy also contained an “Auto Usage Endorsement – Texas” which states in
part as follows:
B. It is agreed and understood that the following definition is added to the policy:

“Collector Vehicle” means an “antique” or “special interest” private passenger auto
or motorcycle that:

1. Is maintained solely for use in exhibitions, parades, club activities,
or other functions of public interest.

2. Is not used for regular driving to work, school, errands, shopping,
general transportation, secondary or back-up transportation,
business or commercial purposes, except for limited pleasure
use.

9

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 10 of 16

As used in this definition:
The term “antique” means a “collector vehicle” which is prior to the 1964 model
year.
The term “special interest” means a “collector vehicle” which is model year 1964
and later.
C. Declaratory Judgment Relief
4.25 Philadelphia seeks a declaration from this Court that under the terms, exclusions,
definitions and/or conditions of the Policy there is no coverage afforded by the Policy for the
Incident on November 12, 2009.
4.26 The Policy’s insuring agreement under “Part D – Coverage for Damage to Your
Auto” provides that Philadelphia “will pay for direct and accidental loss to ‘your covered auto’,
including their equipment, minus any applicable deductible shown in the Declarations.” The
Policy also contained an “Auto Usage Endorsement – Texas” which deleted and replaced the
definition of “Your covered auto” to mean “1. Any ‘collector vehicle’ shown in the
Declarations.” Therefore, to be covered a vehicle would need to meet a two part test: (1) be
shown in the Declarations and (2) meet the definition of a “collector vehicle.”
4.27 The Bugatti was listed in the Declarations.
4.28 However, the Bugatti was not a “collector vehicle” as defined by the
endorsement. As indicated above, Mr. House did not limit his use of the vehicle for exhibitions,
parades, club activities or other functions of public interest. He used it for driving to work,
errands, shopping, secondary or back-up transportation, and business or commercial purposes all
of which far exceed his “limited pleasure use.” Amazingly, he used the vehicle for several of
these activities on the very same day the incident took place and was in the process of using his
GPS to find the location of his next errand when he dropped the phone and allegedly lost control

10

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 11 of 16

of his vehicle. Mr. House’s use of this vehicle grossly exceeded the scope of his coverage as set
forth in the Policy directly contributing to the loss. As such, the damage to the Bugatti as a result
of the Incident is not a covered loss under the insuring agreement.
III. RESCISSION: MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS BY DEFENDANTS NULLIFY POLICY

A. Background Facts
4.29 Philadelphia’s investigation revealed that Mr. House is in the business of buying
and selling exotic vehicles through a company he owns named Performance Auto Sales. This is
Mr. House’s only business and primary source of income. Andy House titled the 2003 Ferrari
Enzo in Performance Auto Sales’s name when he first took possession of the vehicle. He even
used dealer plates on the vehicle while he was in possession of it. Similarly, Andy House titled
the 2006 Bugatti Veyron in Performance Auto Sales’s name when he first took possession of the
vehicle. Mr. House purchased these vehicles with the intent to advertise and eventually sell
these vehicles through his business for a profit. In fact, Mr. House did advertise for sale the 2003
Ferrari Enzo on Performance Auto Sales’s website. Further, he listed the 2006 Bugatti Veyron
for sale almost immediately upon purchase through a broker.
4.30 Defendant Andy House intentionally misrepresented the intended use of the
vehicles in his application documents submitted to Philadelphia. Mr. House intended to use
these vehicles for business or commercial purposes related to Performance Auto Sales. Mr.
Gillespie knew of Mr. House’s business and the intended use of the vehicles. However, Mr.
House represented to Philadelphia that they were to be used for hobby purposes with Mr.
Gillespie’s knowledge. Philadelphia relied on Mr. House’s representations to underwrite the
Policy. Had Mr. House’s intended use been revealed, Philadelphia would not have issued the
Policy to Mr. House or included Mr. Gillespie as a loss payee. Further, Mr. House’s intended

11

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 12 of 16

use of this vehicle outside the scope of a collector vehicle contributed to the contingency or event

on which he alleges the Policy became due and payable.

B. Application Language for the Collector Vehicle Insurance

4.31 Andy House applied for insurance through the Collector Vehicle Program with

Grundy Worldwide which is underwritten by Philadelphia. Andy House’s application is dated

July 13, 2009. Andy House applied for insurance for his 2003 Ferrari Enzo stated to have 7,800

miles. He indicated his occupation as “Performance Auto Sales.” Mr. House indicated, in part,

the following on his application:

1. Any collector vehicle used for driving to and from work or school? No

2. Any collector vehicle used for errands, back-up, primary or secondary

transportation? No

APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: I warrant my collector vehicle will be used and
maintained for hobby purposes and exhibition and not for racing, rallying, general
transportation, or backup transportation.

The collector vehicle program he applied for is a personal lines program for individuals seeking

to insure a hobby or collector vehicle as indicated by the questions above.

4.32 As part of Mr. House’s application process he further signed an

“Acknowledgment of Use” form which stated the following:

“In consideration of the premium charged, it is hereby understood and agreed that any
vehicle insured under this policy will be used for hobby purposes and exhibition and will
not be used primarily for general transportation. It will not be used for back up
transportation or for errands. It will not be driven to work or school or used for business or
commercial purposes.

It is further understood and agreed that any vehicle insured under this policy will not be
used to participate in any rally gymkhana, speed contest, race or timed event of any kind

Your signature below will attest to your understanding of the foregoing.”

12

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 13 of 16

C. Declaratory Judgment Relief
4.33 Philadelphia hereby alleges that Defendant Andy House made material
misrepresentations in the application documents submitted to obtain the collector vehicle
insurance, that the statements by Defendant Andy House regarding the nature of the intended use
of the vehicles were false as shown above, that Philadelphia relied upon the statements made by
Defendant Andy House, that the Defendant intended to deceive Philadelphia in making the
statements, that the misrepresentations were material and had Philadelphia known of the falsity
of the representations, Philadelphia would not have issued the original Policy, or the change
document, made the subject of this lawsuit under the circumstances that they were issued.
Further, Mr. House’s intended use of this vehicle outside the scope of a collector vehicle
contributed to the contingency or event on which he alleges the Policy became due and payable.
4.34 Defendant Lloyd Gillespie is designated as a loss payee under the Loss Payable
Clause in the Policy. Mr. Gillespie provided the loan to Mr. House to obtain the vehicle. Mr.
Gillespie insisted that Mr. House obtain insurance prior to taking possession of the vehicle. Mr.
Gillespie knew Mr. House intended to purchase these vehicles for Performance Auto Sales and
was aware that Mr. House titled the Bugatti in Performance Auto Sales’s name. Mr. Gillespie
would even stop by Performance Auto Sales on occasion and drive the vehicle. Further, the
application documents were attached to the Policy received by Lloyd Gillespie. Therefore,
Defendant Lloyd Gillespie knew about these intentional, material misrepresentations made by
Andy House in the application documents to Philadelphia, but failed to disclose the truth. For the
same reasons, the Policy should be rescinded for Mr. House, the Policy should be rescinded as to
Lloyd Gillespie.

13

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 14 of 16

4.35 Compliance with Texas Insurance Code §705.005: Philadelphia took an
examination under oath of Andy House on April 22, 2010 by mutual consent of the parties. That
is the day the Insurer discovered the falsity of Mr. House’s representations. This petition is
being served on Defendants through counsel, along with return of all premiums received to date,
as notice that Philadelphia (or any of its subsidiaries) intends not to be bound by any policy
referenced herein, pursuant to Texas Insurance Code §705.005, based on the misrepresentations
as outlined above. Plaintiff has provided this notice timely and has met all conditions precedent
to rescind.
IV. VALUE OF THE LOSS

4.36 If the Court finds that either Andy House or Lloyd Gillespie are entitled to funds
from this Policy as a result of the damage to the Bugatti, Philadelphia seeks a declaration from
this Court as to the amount owed to Defendants.

4.37 Under the Agreed Value Endorsement, the insured may be entitled to less than the
Agreed Value of $2,200,000 if the damage to the vehicle is a “Partial Loss.”

4.38 Further, if the Court determines that only the Loss Payee is entitled to the
insurance proceeds for the vehicle, he would be limited to the existing lien value which in this
instance is significantly less than the amount stated in the declarations.

4.39 Philadelphia seeks a declaration from this Court as to the amount owed to
Defendants under the Policy.

V.
JURY DEMAND
5.1 Plaintiff hereby request that all causes of action alleged herein be tried before a
jury consisting of citizens residing in the Southern District of Texas.

14

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 15 of 16

VI.

PRAYER

Wherefore, Philadelphia prays that Defendants be summoned to appear and answer

herein and, upon hearing thereof, that Philadelphia has a declaratory judgment against the

Defendants as follows:

1. For a judgment declaring there is no coverage afforded by Collector Vehicle
Insurance Policy Number GD20057880-00, along with any changes,
modifications, endorsements, or amendments, for the Incident on November 12,
2009 involving the 2006 Bugatti Veyron under the terms, exclusions, definitions
and/or conditions of the Policy.

2. For a judgment declaring the rights and obligations of Philadelphia under
Collector Vehicle Insurance Policy Number GD20057880-00, along with any
changes, modifications, endorsements, or amendments with regard to the
Defendants’ claims and any additional claims or suits arising therefrom.

3. For a judgment declaring Philadelphia had a right to rescind the Collector Vehicle
Insurance Policy Number GD20057880-00, along with any changes,
modifications, endorsements, or amendments, as to both Defendants.

4. If necessary, for a judgment declaring the amount owed by Philadelphia to one or
both of the Defendants under Collector Vehicle Insurance Policy Number
GD20057880-00, along with any changes, modifications, endorsements, or
amendments for damage to the Bugatti.

5. For a judgment against Defendants for further necessary and proper relief based
on a declaratory judgment or decree granted, after reasonable notice and hearing,
against any Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2202.

6. For such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Philadelphia
may show itself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

MILLER, SCAMARDI & CARRABBA, P.C.

By: /s/ David L. Miller
David L. Miller
SBN: 14067300
6525 Washington Avenue
Houston, Texas 77007

15

Case 3:10-cv-00243 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 16 of 16

TEL: (713) 861-3595
FAX: (713) 861-3596
ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY

OF COUNSEL:
Luke C. Carrabba
SBN: 03869050
Jeff C. Wigginton, Jr.
SBN: 24057521
Miller, Scamardi & Carrabba, P.C.
6525 Washington Avenue
Houston, Texas 77007
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY

16