JEANINE RANKIN, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE 725th ......Plaintiff Jeanine Rankin and her late husband...

NO. 19-000711-CV

JEANINE RANKIN, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE 725th DISTRICT COURT AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE § ESTATE OF STEPHEN RANKIN, § DECEASED, § § IN AND FOR Plaintiff, § v. § § TRAVIS COUNTY PAYMORE SPECIALITY § INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., § § Defendant. § STATE OF LONE STAR

Prepared by:

Marvin W. Jones Sprouse Shrader Smith PLLC

701 S. Taylor, Suite 500 Amarillo, TX79101

Copyright 2020 Texas Young Lawyers Association

and Marvin W. Jones

All Rights Reserved

This case file was commissioned by the Texas Young Lawyers Association and was prepared by Marvin W. Jones for the 2020 National Trial Competition

NATIONAL TRIAL COMPETITION

JEANINE RANKIN v. PAYMORE SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This is a wrongful death action filed by Jeanine Rankin against Paymore Specialty Insurance Company (“Paymore”) as a result of the death of her husband, Stephen Rankin. Mrs. Rankin asserts that her husband took his own life as a result of intentional infliction of emotional distress by Paymore in the handling of a claim asserted by the Rankins for the total destruction of a commercial building owned by them and insured by Paymore. The building housed a corporation owned by the Rankins as well as a business owned by their son. It burned on February 3, 2017, as a result of an accident involving a cutting torch being operated by an employee of their son’s business. The Rankins immediately filed an insurance claim with Paymore, which assigned the claim to an adjuster. After seeing a news report that there were explosives in the building at the time of the fire, the adjuster looked at the application for the policy and saw that a question about exposure to explosives had been answered “no.” The adjuster concluded that the only information he needed to pay or deny the claim was to talk to the insurance agent who procured the policy to determine how the question had come to be answered as it had. On January 15, 2019, Paymore paid the policy amount to the Rankins.

NTC 2020 Regional

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT—PAGE 1 OF 6

NO. 19-000711-CV


PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Jeanine Rankin, Individually and as Executor of the

Estate of Stephen Rankin, Deceased (“Plaintiff”) and files this Original Complaint

against Paymore Mutual Insurance Company, Inc.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

2. Plaintiff is Jeanine Rankin, the surviving wife of Stephen Rankin, deceased.

Plaintiff is a resident of Travis County, Lone Star.

3. Paymore Specialty Insurance Company, Inc. (“Paymore”) is a private for profit

incorporated business with it principal place of business in Dry Creek, Travis

County, Lone Star. Its agent for service of process is Tim Williams, its president,

who may be served with process in this matter at 452 Cold Heart Lane, Belgrade,

Lone Star.

NTC 2020 Regional


II. BACKGROUND FACTS

4. Plaintiff Jeanine Rankin and her late husband Stephen Rankin owned a business

located at 225 S. 6th Street, Armadillo, Lone Star known as Fire in the Hole, Inc.,

a wireline company engaged in providing services to the oil and gas industry in

the State of Lone Star. In 2016, they constructed a commercial building to house

the business, which building was also large enough to house other commercial

businesses. One of the tenants of the building was a business known as A-1

Oilfield Rental, belonging to their son, Cullom Rankin. Plaintiff and her late

husband planned to continue the Fire in the Hole business until Stephen reached

the age of 70, then to sell the business to their son and retire on the rental

payments they would receive from the building.

5. On May 1, 2016, Paymore issued its policy number PMS158794, providing

property damage coverage for a commercial building belonging to Stephen

Rankin and his bride, Jeanine Rankin, the Plaintiff herein. The policy provided

coverage for the period between May 1, 2016 and May 1, 2017, and provided that

if the building was totally lost as a result of a covered event, the insureds would

be paid the sum of $1,500,000, the value of the building.

6. On February 3, 2017, the building in question was totally destroyed by a fire.

Stephen Rankin reported the loss to Paymore’s agent, Taylor Smith, who in turn

reported the loss to Paymore. Paymore assigned the claim to Kim Conway, an

employee of Paymore whose job duties included the handling and payment of

claims. Conway thereafter commenced an investigation of the claim, and by

February 5, 2017 knew that the policy was in effect at the time of the fire, the

NTC 2020 Regional


premiums were paid up, the building did in fact belong to Stephen and Jeanine

Rankin, and that the fire marshal for Travis County regarded the fire as

accidental. Conway was also aware of a newspaper report that there were

explosives in the building at the time of the fire.

7. On February 5, 2017, Conway requested and was provided with a copy of the

Paymore underwriting file on the policy at issue, and discovered that there was a

question on the application for the insurance about whether there was “exposure

to flammables, explosives or chemicals” in the property for which insurance was

being requested. Conway determined that the question had been answered “no.”

Conway was aware that the “no” answer could invalidate the insurance coverage

if either Stephen or Jeanine Rankin had provided the answer with the intention of

deceiving Paymore. Conway therefore knew that the only piece of information he

needed to pay or deny the claim was to talk to the agent, Taylor Smith, to

determine the circumstances surrounding the application.

8. Notwithstanding the above knowledge, Conway did not contact the agent, Taylor

Smith, to ask the one question that he needed to ask, but instead deliberately set

out on a path designed to pressure Stephen Rankin into accepting partial or no

payment for the loss of the building. Specifically, Conway sent investigators to

Armadillo to talk to police and fire officials, employees of A-1 Oilfield Rental,

other insurance agents and neighbors of the Rankins, but not to talk to the agent,

Taylor Smith. Conway demanded that the insureds provide information he already

had, and demanded that they sit for examinations under oath.

NTC 2020 Regional


9. As time dragged on, Stephen Rankin became frustrated, then distraught, then

depressed. He was having to make mortgage payments on the building that no

longer existed in the amount of $10,000 per month, even though the Policy

contained a provision that required Paymore to pay any mortgage while disputing

any claim. Stephen Rankin attempted to keep Fire in the Hole running as a

business, but encountered difficulty due to the lack of a building in which to store

expensive and sensitive tools and to work on equipment and vehicles. As time

passed, he lost employees with the expertise to do the specialized work of the

company, and consequently lost customers. Eventually, 15 months after the fire,

the business failed.

10. After the failure of Fire in the Hole, Stephen Rankin became depressed and

inconsolable, and eventually took his own life on August 18, 2018. After

Stephen’s death, on September 10, 2018, Paymore paid the balance of the

mortgage on the building. After Stephen’s death, Conway contacted the agent,

Taylor Smith, who told Conway that an employee of the insurance agency had

filled out the application and that the software used to generate the application

always defaulted to “no” on all answers unless the agent changed it to “yes.”

Following this conversation, on January 15, 2019, Conway approved payment of

the claim and paid Plaintiff the sum of $1,500,000.

III. CAUSE OF ACTION

11. Paymore intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress on Stephen Rankin. As a

direct and proximate result of that severe emotional distress, Stephen Rankin took

his own life.

NTC 2020 Regional


12. In particular, Paymore knew from two days after the fire that it only needed one

piece of information in order to determine whether to pay or deny the claim, but

deliberately delayed getting that information from its own agent for nearly two

years, knowing that Rankin was being subjected to severe economic stress.

13. Paymore’s actions were intentional or reckless, and its conduct was extreme and

outrageous. Paymore’s conduct caused Stephen Rankin to suffer emotional

distress so severe that he took his own life. Accordingly, Paymore is liable to

Plaintiff for the intentional infliction of emotion distress that led directly and

proximately to the death of Plaintiff’s husband.

14. Plaintiff therefore sues Paymore for damages related to her husband’s untimely

and tragic death, including her own mental anguish, loss of society and

companionship, loss of Stephen’s salary from their business, and for the mental

anguish suffered by Stephen prior to his death.

IV. JURY DEMAND

15. Plaintiff hereby requests trial by jury.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Defendant be cited to answer and

appear, and that upon final hearing the Plaintiff have judgment for damages, pre-

judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of suit and such other and

further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

NTC 2020 Regional


Respectfully Submitted, Law Offices of Laura Pratt 2204 Flint Rock Parkway P.O. Box 100707 Armadillo, Lone Star 76377-1950 (512) WILL SUE (Telephone) (512) 945-5788 (Facsimile) [email protected] By: __/s/ Laura Pratt_(electronically filed)_____ Laura Pratt Lone Star State Bar No. 1075896324

NTC 2020 Regional

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER—PAGE 1 OF 4

NO. 19-000711-CV


DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW, Defendant Paymore Speciality Insurance Company, Inc. and files this its

Original Answer in response to the Original Complaint filed by Plaintiff.

I. ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

1. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Original

Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.

4. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to either admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, and therefore

denies same.

NTC 2020 Regional



Complaint.


Complaint.

7. Defendant admits that there was a false answer in the application for the insurance at

issue, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s

Original Complaint.

8. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Original

Complaint.


Complaint.

10. Defendant admits it has paid in full the proceeds owed under the policy of insurance in

question, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s

Original Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.

15. Defendant demands a trial by jury.

NTC 2020 Regional


16. Defendant denies the allegations contained in the “Prayer” of Plaintiff’s Original

Complaint.

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

17. Without waiver of the foregoing but in addition thereto, Defendant invokes the

affirmative defense of intervening causation. If Stephen Rankin took his own life, which

is denied, then such act was the intervening cause of his death.

18. Without waiver of the foregoing but in addition thereto, Defendant invokes the

affirmative defense of sole cause. If Stephen Rankin took his own life, which is denied,

then such act was the sole cause of his death.

19. Pursuant to Lone Star Civil Remedies Code Section 69.082, Defendant designates

William Dunn as a responsible third party whose conduct caused the death of Stephen

Rankin. In particular, Dunn is responsible for Rankin’s death because Dunn discovered

that Rankin, a close friend, was having an affair with Dunn’s wife, and did then shoot and

kill Rankin in a jealous fit of rage. In other words, Bill Dunn did it.

III. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that upon final trial that Defendant have judgment

that Plaintiff take nothing by her suit, that Defendant be discharged from any and all liability,

that Defendant recover court costs and for such other and further relief, at law or in equity,

general or special, to which Defendant may show itself justly entitled.

NTC 2020 Regional


Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF KIRK COOPER 1528 Justice Avenue

P.O. Box 15008 Armadillo, Lone Star 76707 (512) 831-7364 (512) 832-2628 FAX [email protected] By:_/s/_Kirk Cooper_______ Kirk Cooper State Bar No. 1588324

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant’s Original Answer has been

electronically filed and served to Laura Pratt on this 1st day of April, 2019.

By:_/s/_[electronically signed]___________ Kirk Cooper

NTC 2020 Regional

WITNESSES

Plaintiff 1. Jeanine Rankin (must be female) 2. Cary Tinker (may be either male or female)

Defendant 3. Kim Conway (may be either male or female) 4. B.B. Thompson (may be either male or female)

EXHIBITS:

1. Photo of Perforating Tool

2. Photo of Shaped Charges

3. Letter from Paymore dated February 19, 2017

4. Letter from Paymore dated March 6, 2017

5. Proof of Loss

6. Letter from Paymore dated March 21, 2017

7. Application

8. Excerpt from Insurance Policy

9. Incident Report

10. Letter from Attorney dated March 23, 2017

11. Autopsy Report

12. Expert Report of Chris Jensen in underlying suit

13. Excerpt from Tinker’s Article in Psychology Today

14. Subpoena DucesTecum for EUO

15. Expert Report of Leonard Kinnard in underlying suit

16. MSDS Sheet Shaped Charges

17. MSDS Sheet Detonator Cord

18. MSDS Sheet Primers

19. Invoice for Supplies

20. Perforating Illustration

21. Email from Agent

22. Calendar Page

NTC 2020 Regional

STIPULATIONS AS TO EVIDENTIARY MATTERS

Procedural Matters

1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence apply.

2. All witnesses called to testify who have identified the parties, other individuals, or

tangible evidence in depositions or prior testimony will, if asked, identify the same at trial.

3. Each witness who gave a deposition agreed under oath at the outset of his or her

deposition to give a full and complete description of all material events that occurred and to

correct the deposition for inaccuracies and completeness before signing the deposition.

4. All depositions were signed under oath.

5. For this competition, no team is permitted to attempt to impeach a witness by

arguing to the jury that a signature appearing on a deposition does not comport with signatures or

initials located on an exhibit.

6. Other than what is supplied in the problem itself, there is nothing exceptional or

unusual about the background information of any of the witnesses that would bolster or detract

from their credibility.

7. This competition does not permit a listed witness, while testifying, to "invent" an

individual not mentioned in this problem and have testimony or evidence offered to the court or

jury from that "invented" individual.

8. "Beyond the record" shall not be entertained as an objection. Rather, teams shall

use cross-examination as to necessary inferences from material facts pursuant to National Rules

7.4. Any party wishing to file a complaint concerning a violation of this rule shall use the

procedure found in Rule VIII(4).

NTC 2020 Regional

9. The Plaintiff and the Defendant must call the two witnesses listed as that party's

witnesses on the witness list.

10. All exhibits in the file are authentic. In addition, each exhibit contained in the file

is the original of that document unless otherwise noted on the exhibit or as established by the

evidence.

11. It is stipulated that no one shall attempt to contact the problem drafter about this

problem before the conclusion of the 2020 National Trial Competition Final Round. Contact with

the competition officials concerning this problem must be pursuant to the rules of the

competition.

12. 2020 is the year in which this case comes to trial.

13. Presentation and argument on pretrial motions shall be limited to a total time of

sixteen minutes divided equally between the parties as follows: (1) the Plaintiff shall have four

minutes to present any pretrial motions; (2) the Defendant shall have four minutes to respond to

the Plaintiff's motion(s); (3) the Defendant shall have four minutes to present any pretrial

motions; and (4) the Plaintiff shall have four minutes to respond to the Defendant's motion(s).

14. This competition permits teams to argue additional case law and other relevant

authority to support the team's argument on motions and evidentiary issues. However, no

additions or deletions are permitted to the provided jury instructions or to the jury verdict form.

NTC 2020 Regional

Substantive Matters

1. Lone Star Insurance Code Section 541.055 provides:

DELAY IN PAYMENT OF CLAIM. (a) Except as otherwise

provided, if an insurer, after receiving all items,statements, and

forms reasonably requested and required in writing within 15 days

of receipt of notice of a loss, delays payment of the claim for a

period exceeding 180 days, the insurer shall pay damages and

other items as provided by Section 542.060.

(b)Subsection (a) does not apply in a case in which the insurer is

investigating a loss in good faith, but in no event shall an insurer

delay payment of a claim without accepting or denying the claim

for more than Five Hundred (500) days after receipt of notice of

such claim.

NTC 2020 Regional

DEPOSITION OF JEANINE RANKIN JULY 2, 2019

DEPOSITION OF JEANINE RANKIN PAGE 1 of 9

Q: Please state your name. 1

A: My name is Jeanine Rankin. 2

Q: Was Stephen Rankin your husband? 3

A: “Was” being the operative word. 4

Q: Where do you live, Mrs. Rankin? 5

A: Right here in Armadillo, Lone Star. 6

Q: How long have you lived in Armadillo? 7

A: Seems like all of my life, but it’s really just been 15 years. 8

Q: How long were you married to Stephen Rankin? 9

A: 28 good years. 30 in all. 10

Q: Which of those 28 were the good ones? 11

A: The first 28. The past 2 were not so good, thanks in part to you guys. 12

Q: What business was your husband in? 13

A: He was in the wireline services business. That’s a business that services oil and gas 14

companies that are drilling wells. 15

Q: What was the name of the company? 16

A: The name of the company was Fire in the Hole. 17

Q: What exactly did Fire in the Hole do? 18

A: We offered a variety of services for well drillers and oil and gas operators. The thing we 19

did most was perforating services. 20

NTC 2020 Regional



Q: What are perforating services? 1

A: That’s where you drop an object called a perforating tool down into a wellbore 2

that has just been drilled and cased. The perforating tool is used to shoot holes in 3

the casing for the oil and gas to pass through. 4

Q: Do they also refer to these as perforating guns? 5

A: We prefer the term “perforating tools.” 6

Q: How does a perforating gun work? 7

A: The perforating tool has a number of slots in it. You put a shaped charge in each 8

of the slots and run detonator cord and primers between them. An electrical cable 9

is then run to the surface, where you are hooked up to a power source. When 10

everything is ready, you press a button and all of the shaped charges go off at 11

once creating slots or perforations in the casing. 12

Q: Can you identify Exhibit 1? 13

A: Yes, that’s an artist’s depiction of a perforating tool. 14

Q: What are shaped charges? 15

A: Shaped charges are just what the name implies. They are small portions of a 16

plastic explosive called C4 which has been shaped to make an explosion that 17

creates a slot. 18

Q: What is detonator cord? 19

A: Detonator cord is like a small tube full of a substance called PETN. 20


A: Yes, that’s a photo of some shaped charges strung together with detonator cord. 22

Q: What is a primer? 23

NTC 2020 Regional



A: A primer is like a blasting cap. The detonator cord ignites the blasting cap, which 1

in turns sets off the shaped charge. 2

Q: How long had Fire in the Hole been using perforating guns and shaped charges? 3

A: All of the 20 years that we had been in existence. 4

Q: Where did Fire in the Hole store the shaped charges and detonator cord and 5

blasting caps? 6

A: We kept them in ATF approved magazines in the service bay. Looked like big 7

safes. There were three of them because we kept the different things separated 8

until the crews loaded them up to take them to well sites. The shaped charges 9

would not explode by themselves. You had to combine them with detonator cord 10

and a blasting cap before they’d do their job. 11

Q: Are you saying that shaped charges with C4 are not explosives? 12

A: I’m just saying that you can light C4 on fire and use it to make popcorn, kind of 13

like Sterno. You can shoot it with a rifle and it won’t go boom. It takes a blast 14

like a blasting cap to make it explode. 15

Q: We are here today about a lawsuit you brought against the insurance company, 16

Paymore Mutual Insurance Company. You and your husband filed an earlier 17

lawsuit against Paymore relating to the insurance on your building, but you 18

understand that this lawsuit relates to the death of your husband? 19

A: Yes, this lawsuit is by me alone against Paymore. My husband and I owned the 20

building that Fire in the Hole operated out of. That building burned down on 21

February 3, 2018.Your insurance company refused to pay for it. You completely 22

NTC 2020 Regional



put us out of business, you made him into a depressive alcoholic and he took his 1

own life as a result. 2

Q: When was the building built? 3

A: We built it in 2016. We’d been renting a ratty old place out in the boonies and 4

decided that it would be a good financial decision to build a place of our own. 5

We could rent half of it to Fire in the Hole and the other half to our son, who ran 6

an equipment rental company. When we retired, we could sell Fire in the Hole to 7

our son and live off the rental income from the building. It was our retirement 8

plan. 9


A: Yes. That’s a letter that Paymore sent to my husband and me a few days after the 11

fire. It says that Paymore was investigating the loss at that time, and therefore it 12

could not either pay or deny the claim. 13


A: Yes. That’s another letter we got from Paymore. This one is dated March 6, 15

2017. It says that Paymore is still investigating, and requests we produce a copy 16

of our policy. 17

Q: Were you able to produce a copy of your policy? 18

A: Our copy of the policy was in the building when it burned up. 19

Q: Where were you on the night of the fire? 20

A: We were at home. We got a phone call from our son. He said the building was on 21

fire and we needed to get down there quick. 22

Q: What did you see when you got there? 23

NTC 2020 Regional



A: We saw the building. It was engulfed in flames. We saw a bunch of firemen 1

standing around one of those trailers that serves sandwiches and coffee, drinking 2

coffee and eating sandwiches. 3

Q: When you got there did it appear that the building was lost? 4

A: Yes, the building was all on fire. 5

Q: Did your husband make any comments about the fire at that time? 6

A: Yes, he was pretty upset, because the building was just a couple of years old, and 7

it was the only place that we had to service our fleet of trucks and to store our 8

equipment and supplies. So he was really upset, and he turned to me and said 9

“This is horrible, but thank goodness we have insurance on this building. We’ll be 10

back in business in 6 months.” 11

Q: Did you file a Notice of Claim? 12

A: We notified our insurance agent about the fire the next morning, and he notified 13

Paymore. 14

Q: Did you file a Proof of Loss? 15

A: Yes, Paymore sent us a Proof of Loss and requested that we fill it out, which we 16

did and sent it right back. 17


A: Yes, that’s the Proof of Loss that we filled out in connection with this fire. 19

Q: What did you hear from the insurance company after that? 20

A: We got another letter from them that is marked Exhibit 6. This letter says that 21

they are still investigating the fire. Requests a copy of our insurance policy, and 22

NTC 2020 Regional



then it mentions that they might have to investigate further because they thought 1

there might be a misrepresentation on the application for the insurance. 2


A: Yes, that’s the application for the insurance. 4

Q: Who filled this out? 5

A: Stephen filled it out, I guess. I never saw it until after the fire. 6

Q: When did you next hear from the insurance company? 7

A: Paymore contacted our lawyer and asked that we sit for Examinations under Oath. 8

Q: Did you do the Examinations under Oath/? 9

A: Yes, we did those on June 16, 2017. 10

Q: What did you hear from the insurance company after the Examinations under 11

Oath? 12

A: We heard nothing from them for 3 months. Our lawyer wrote them a nasty letter 13

threating to sue them and giving them a deadline. The deadline came and went, so 14

we sued them. 15

Q: Paymore says that question number 3 on the application is false because there 16

were explosives on the property; were there explosives? 17

A: We had shaped charges, detonator cord and primers on the property all the time. 18

Q: I think this is obvious, but was your husband aware that there were shaped 19

charges, detonator cords and primers in the building when this application was 20

filled out? 21

A: Yes. 22

Q: When did Mr. Rankin start exhibiting signs of stress over this situation? 23

NTC 2020 Regional



A: About the time we filed the lawsuit. He’d been doing pretty good up until then, 1

thinking the insurance company would come through. When we had to file the 2

suit, he started going downhill. 3

Q: Why do you say he was going downhill? 4

A: He quit being the happy go lucky guy that he’d always been. He started moping 5

around the house. He was drinking more. He quit playing golf with his buddies. 6

He even lost interest in normal relationships with me. 7

Q: Did the insurance company’s refusal to pay the claim cause you any financial 8

distress? 9

A: Yes, we were able to keep the business going for awhile, then our detonation 10

engineers starting quitting and going to the competition because they had 11

buildings to operate out of, so we were losing the business. During that time, we 12

were having to pay $10,000.00 a month in mortgage payments on the building 13

that was gone. It created a lot of added stress. 14

Q: How long did you have to make the mortgage payments? 15

A: Well, the insurance company finally paid the mortgage off, about 15 months after 16

the fire. There was a clause in the contract that they had to pay the mortgage 17

holder even if they were going to claim the misrepresentation of the application. 18


A: Yes, that’s a page from the insurance policy about paying off the mortgage. 20

Q: In the weeks before his death, what was Mr. Rankin’s demeanor? 21

A: Well, again, he was moping around, drinking way too much, angry at the world, 22

angry at me. He disappeared for long stretches of time, sometimes overnight. 23

NTC 2020 Regional



He’d come back in the morning looking a little more chipper, but then he’d lapse 1

into sulking again. 2


A: Yes, that’s a page from the calendar he kept at the office. I was clearing his 4

personal effects out after he died, and came across the calendar. I flipped through 5

it just out of curiosity or nostalgia or something, and came across this suicide 6

note. 7

Q: Do you recognize the handwriting on this calendar page? 8

A: Oh, yes. That’s Stephen’s handwriting all right. 9

Q: Did you find any other notes or calendar entries where he specifically said he was 10

going to take his own life? 11

A: Isn’t this clear enough for you? No, there was nothing else but this very clear 12

note. 13

Q: How did you learn of his death? 14

A: A deputy from the sheriff’s department came to the door early one morning and 15

said he had some bad news. 16

Q: Did Mr. Rankin own a gun? 17

A: This is Lone Star. Even our grandchildren have guns. But Stephen only had a 18

shotgun for goose hunting. He didn’t own a pistol. 19

Q: Speaking of your grandchildren, did the building that burned have an office with a 20

playroom for the grandchildren? 21

A: Yes, they visited us all the time and played there in the playroom in the office 22

next to the service bays of the building. 23

NTC 2020 Regional



Q: Are you saying you let the grandchildren play next to the magazines where the 1

shaped charges were stored? 2

A: We never let the grandchildren play with the shaped charges. 3

Q: That wasn’t my question. 4

A: That was my answer. 5

6

NTC 2020 Regional

DEPOSITION OF CARY TINKER JULY 11, 2019

DEPOSITION OF CARY TINKER PAGE 1 of 8


A: My name is Cary Tinker. 2

Q: Where do you live? 3

A: I live in China Grove, Lone Star. 4

Q: Which China Grove? 5

A: Actually, both of them. I have a main house in the China Grove area near San 6

Antonio, and a vacation house in the China Grove closer to Houston. 7

Q: Big Doobie Brothers fan? 8

A: Who? 9

Q: Never mind. What is your occupation? 10

A: I am a psychiatrist who specializes in the subject of suicide. 11

Q: What is your educational background? 12

A: I attended China Grove High School, the one near San Antonio, and then went on 13

to the prestigious University of Lone Star, the branch over in Cheapside, where I 14

got a degree in biology with a minor in art history. After that, I was admitted to 15

the Harvard School of Medicine, where I graduated in 2000. I did a residency in 16

psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. After I completed that, I 17

moved back to Lone Star and started a practice in Armadillo, but I found the town 18

to be too dry, so I moved back to my home town of China Grove. 19

Q: Have you practiced there continually since? 20

A: Yes, and to answer your next 2 questions, I am admitted to practice medicine in 21

the State of Lone Star, and I have been accepted into the American College of 22

Psychiatrists. 23

NTC 2020 Regional



Q: What were you asked to do in connection with this case? 1

A: I was hired by Plaintiff’s counsel to look at the facts and circumstances 2

surrounding the death of Stephen Rankin and to determine, to a reasonable degree 3

of medical certainty or probability, whether Mr. Rankin took his own life, and if 4

so, what were the precipitating factors in connection with that suicide. 5

Q: Is determining the precipitating factors in a suicide something that you do on a 6

regular basis? 7

A: Yes, I specialize in the study of suicide, and therefore I routinely am asked to 8

determine both whether a death is suicide and if so, the motivating or precipitating 9

factors in the decision to take one’s life. 10

Q: Have you been published in connection with your studies of suicide? 11

A: Yes, I have written a book called the Suicide Solution. It’s not made the New 12

York Times best seller list yet, but I always remain hopeful and despondent, 13

generally at the same time. 14

Q: What materials did you review in connections with your assignment here? 15

A: Well, I looked at the pleadings in this case, of course, and I looked at the incident 16

report, and the autopsy report. I also interviewed several witnesses who were 17

friends of the plaintiff, and of course, I interviewed the decedent’s wife. 18


A: That’s the incident report that I reviewed. 20

Q: And can you identify Exhibit 11? 21

A: Yes, that’s the autopsy report that I reviewed. 22

NTC 2020 Regional



Q: Based on your education, your expertise in suicide and your investigation and 1

review of the materials in connection with this case, have you formed an opinion, 2

based on a reasonable degree of medical probability, as to whether Mr. Rankin 3

committed suicide? 4

A: There’s no question that Mr. Rankin committed suicide. The only real question in 5

the case is why he decided to take that drastic step. 6

Q: There has been some discussion about whether this was a suicide; why do you say 7

there’s no real question about that? 8

A: Take a look at Exhibit 22. That’s a classic suicide note. It expresses a sense of 9

profound failure, a sense of loss that goes beyond just some trifling nuisance in 10

life. Mr. Rankin might as well have just said “I’m going to off myself.” 11

Q: But he didn’t, did he? 12

A: Quibble all you want. It is what it is. 13

Q: Was there any other note or entry that would point more clearly to suicide? 14

A: Again, you’re just parsing words. But no, there’s nothing else in writing. 15

Q: Did you form an opinion, based on a reasonable degree of medical probability, 16

about why Mr. Rankin took his own life? 17

A: Yes, I determined that Mr. Rankin took his own life because he had become 18

depressed, despondent, and had an overwhelming feeling of hopelessness because 19

Paymore Insurance Company refused to pay the claim on the building that he 20

owned that burned downed in 2017. 21

Q: What do you base this opinion on? 22

NTC 2020 Regional



A: Well, first, before this unfortunate fire burned his building down, Mr. Rankin was 1

an extremely happy and outgoing man. He enjoyed great success in his business, 2

and he enjoyed the company of many friends. He and his wife had worked hard 3

and had put a plan in place to fund their retirement in style by building this 4

building. He planned to sell the perforating business and to rent the building out. 5

He thought he had life all wrapped up in a bow. 6

Q: Were there activities that Mr. Rankin particularly enjoyed? 7

A: Prior to the fire, Mr. Rankin was particularly fond of going places with his wife 8

and doing things with her. They had a very close and intimate and normal 9

relationship. And to be frank, Mr. Rankin loved to be around and use explosives. 10

Q: Why was that? 11

A: Well, let’s start with the idea that not a lot of people who have a license from the 12

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms people to use the type of explosives that Mr. 13

Rankin was using. This puts him in a special category of people, which he was 14

very proud of. Plus, he just liked blowing things up. He always had. 15

Q: Isn’t that disturbing on a psychological level? 16

A: Not if you live in Lone Star. That’s pretty normal. Go out on Friday night, buy 17

some Tannerite and a six pack of Bud Lite. Make some explosions. Nothing out 18

of the normal. 19

Q: Based on your investigation, did you determine that Mr. Rankin’ personality 20

changed after the fire? 21

A: My investigation revealed that his personality and his demeanor did not 22

immediately change after the fire. He continued to be a happy go lucky sort of 23

NTC 2020 Regional



guy for several months after the fire. He expressed to several of his friends that he 1

was unconcerned about the fire or its effect on his business or his life because he 2

had insurance on the building. However, as time wore on, his attitude and 3

demeanor began to change. 4

Q: How did it change? 5

A: At first he was not concerned about the situation. He figured the insurance 6

company would step up and pay for the building like it was supposed to do, and 7

he would be able to immediately rebuild and keep his retirement plan intact. His 8

crews were all initially okay with working out in the weather and having no place 9

to store their equipment. He continued to socialize and carry on a normal life. 10

However, as time drug on, he began to get more and more concerned about the 11

situation. His friends reported that he began talking about it and obsessing over it, 12

to the point that many of them didn’t really want to hang around him. He quit 13

playing golf with his regular group. He quit going to restaurants with his wife. He 14

quit going to church. He wife reported that he got into the bottle pretty bad. 15

Q: Did this digression of his demeanor and personality get worse? 16

A: Absolutely. After about 4 months of not receiving any money from the insurance 17

company, his employees started leaving the business because they were tired of 18

working outside with no place to put their expensive equipment. He began losing 19

business because of that. He was having to pay the mortgage on the building that 20

was burned up, and that continued for several months. It seriously impacted his 21

savings. It seriously impacted his cash flow. Ultimately, his wife and friends 22

reported that he would disappear for days at a time. They simply didn’t know 23

NTC 2020 Regional



where he was, but he would show back up in an extremely depressed and foul 1

mood. 2

Q: Did you determine whether the insurance company ever paid for this building? 3

A: Yes, after Mr. Rankin’ suicide the insurance company finally paid the money that 4

was owed for the building, just over a million dollars as I recall. But that was over 5

700 days after the fire. 6

Q: In your opinion, what ultimately drove Mr. Rankin to take his own life? 7

A: The final straw was when his last employees quit and he was unable to do any 8

business. He searched around for a place where he could house his business while 9

he waited on the lawsuit against the insurance company, but was unable to find 10

anything. He couldn’t find a place to do business, he lost all of his employees, he 11

lost all of his clients, and the insurance company was refusing to pay off the 12

mortgage as it was obligated to do. It all overwhelmed him and he took his life. 13

Q: How did he take his life? 14

A: He shot himself with a pistol. 15

Q: Did you determine whether it was a pistol that belonged to Mr. Rankin? 16

A: No, Mrs. Rankin reported that he did not own any pistols, so the pistol did not 17

appear to be his. 18

Q: As part of your work here did you also review the expert report in the other 19

lawsuit, the one against the insurance company that was written by the Rankin’ 20

expert witness? 21

A: Yes, I read that specific report. 22

Q: Is that marked as Exhibit 12? 23

NTC 2020 Regional



A: Yes, that’s the report of the expert, Chris Jensen. 1

Q: Did that report impact your opinions here? 2

A: Yes, it did. Mr. Jensen opined in that report that he had never seen a more flagrant 3

case of the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing on the part of an 4

insurance company. He outlined several violations of the Lone Star statutes 5

relating to payment of insurance claims. His overall opinion was that the 6

insurance company was way out of bounds in not paying this claim, and that the 7

conduct was intentional and designed to put pressure on Mr. Rankin so he would 8

settle for something less than the amount to which he was clearly entitled. 9

Q: Is there a chapter in your book about the influence of extra-marital affairs on the 10

urge to commit suicide? 11

A: Yes, the chapter is called “Twice the Trouble.” 12

Q: Meaning? 13

A: Meaning that people who are involved in extra-marital affairs are often under a lot 14

of stress, both from the spouse and from the affair partner. There are expectations 15

from both of those folks that one person has trouble keeping up with, and there is 16

the stress of keeping the matter secret. It’s a load of work to have an affair. It’s 17

harder than keeping a penguin cool in Houston in August. Not for the weak at 18

heart. 19

Q: What is Exhibit 13? 20

A: That’s a series of excerpts from my excellent book. 21

Q: Were you aware of any affairs that Mr. Rankin was involved in? 22

NTC 2020 Regional



A: Good grief. If a guy like that could have both a wife and a girlfriend, then the rest 1

of us would just have to hang ourselves. Not to be disrespectful, but he wasn’t a 2

real prize in the romance department. More a beer and Tannerite kind of guy. 3

Q: So are you saying Mr. Rankin was not involved in an affair? 4

A: Not to my knowledge. 5

Q: If you discovered he was involved in an affair, would that change your opinion 6

about the motivating factors in his death? 7

A: Absolutely not. Once I’ve reached an opinion, I don’t change my mind like some 8

flip flopping politician. 9

Q: Are you being paid for you work in this case? 10

A: Are you? 11

Q: What’s your arrangement with the Plaintiff for payment for your services? 12

A: I get $750 per hour for research and writing, and twice that for giving testimony 13

in depositions or at trial. So if you want to ask some more questions, feel free. 14

15

16

NTC 2020 Regional

DEPOSITION OF KIM CONWAY MAY 23, 2019

DEPOSITION OF KIM CONWAY—PAGE 1 of 8


A: Kim Conway. 2

Q: Where do you live? 3

A: I live in Paint Rock, Lone Star. 4

Q: What is your occupation? 5

A: I am the Chief Claims Adjuster for Paymore Insurance Company. 6

Q: How long have you held that position? 7

A: Approximately 12 years, 6 months and 17 days. More or less. 8

Q: Working backwards, what did you do before that? 9

A: I worked for Government Employees Insurance Company, also known as GEICO. 10

Q: What was your job at GEICO? 11

A: I was a claims adjuster. 12

Q: Why did you leave GEICO? 13

A: Their advertising got too weird for me. A camel? Really? 14

Q: Continuing looking back at your employment history, what did you do before you 15

worked for GEICO? 16

A: I was in college. 17

Q: What is your educational background? 18

A: I graduated from Paint Rock High School, and then I went to Paint Rock State 19

University, where I graduated with a degree in archeology. 20

Q: Did you ever use your degree in archeology? 21

A: If you think about it, that’s what I do for a living now. I dig out facts. 22

NTC 2020 Regional



Q: Are you the person at Paymore Specialty Insurance Company who was assigned 1

the claims adjustment responsibilities for the Rankin claim? 2

A: Yes, I received the assignment from my supervisor, the executive vice president 3

of the company, the day after the building fire. 4

Q: What was your assignment? 5

A: My assignment was to adjust the claim. 6

Q: What exactly is entailed in adjusting a claim? 7

A: We attempt to gather all of the relevant information about the claim so that we 8

can very quickly determine whether to pay or deny the claim. 9

Q: Why is it important to determine very quickly whether to pay or deny the claim? 10

A: We know that the insureds on a commercial property like this are likely in a bind 11

and need to be able to replace the commercial structure quickly or at least know 12

where they stand so that they can get on with their businesses and their lives. 13

Q: So what did you do when you received this claim? 14

A: First, I gathered up relevant information about the policy. We have a 15

computerized system that allows us to immediately look at the underwriting file 16

and to create a claims file. So I got a copy of the insurance policy itself from 17

underwriting, along with a copy of the application from the agent. I determined 18

that the premiums had been paid up, and that the policy appeared to be in effect. I 19

determined that the Rankins actually owned the building, so there was no problem 20

there. I sent out a letter requesting that the insured send us a Proof of Loss. I 21

called them and had a quick conversation with them the first day after receiving 22

the claims file. 23

NTC 2020 Regional



Q: What did you next? 1

A: I reviewed the application for the insurance to see if there was anything unusual 2

or out of place. 3

Q: What did you discover in that regard? 4

A: There was a question on the application that asked “exposure to explosives?” 5

That question had a “no” out beside it. 6

Q: Can you identify Exh. 7? 7

A: Yes, that’s the page from the application with Question 3, the one about 8

explosives. 9

Q: What did you do next? 10

A: I received information from the local news outlets about the fire. I determined 11

from looking at photos on the internet that the fire had in fact incurred and 12

destroyed the building completely. Therefore, it was classified as a total loss. 13

Q: What else did you learn from looking at the news? 14

A: As you can see from Exhibit 9, the battalion chief remarked that they had to pull 15

back from their firefighting efforts because they discovered there were explosives 16

in the building. 17

Q: Did that cause you any concern? 18

A: Yes, remember that Question 3 was answered “no,” but here’s the head fire 19

fighter talking about explosives. That’s a potential misrepresentation on the 20

application, and could justify Paymore in paying nothing. 21

Q: In terms of claims adjustment, what did you need at that point to make the 22

determination to pay or deny the claim? 23

NTC 2020 Regional



A: Well, once I received the Proof of Loss, all I needed to know was why the 1

question on the application about exposure to explosives had been answered “no”. 2

Q: How would you go about determining that? 3

A: I needed to ask the agent who took the application how it came about that the 4

“no” answer was on question number 3. 5

Q: Why was that important? 6

A: Because in order to avoid having to pay on this policy, we would have to prove 7

that Mr. Rankin intended to deceive us with this answer. If he intended to deceive 8

us, we could get out of paying the policy. 9

Q: Why would talking to the agent help you with that determination? 10

A: Well, if the agent actually asked him the question about explosives and Mr. 11

Rankin actually said “no,” then obviously he was lying because there were 12

explosives in the building at the time of the fire. 13

Q: And if the agent told you that Mr. Rankin did not provide that answer, what 14

would happen? 15

A: Then we would have to find some other way to avoid paying the policy. 16

Q: Or, you could just pay the claim, couldn’t you? 17

A: Well, I suppose we could do that as a last resort. 18

Q: After you saw the “no” answer on the application and the fire marshal’s saying 19

there were explosives in the building, what did you do next? Did you contact the 20

agent? 21

NTC 2020 Regional



A: Well, that’s two questions. I’ll answer the first. The next thing I did was to write 1

the letter that is identified as Exhibit 3, directed to the Rankins, letting them know 2

that I was not able to pay or deny the claim because I was still investigating. 3


A: I wrote the letter marked as Exhibit 4, pointing out some of the policy provisions 5

that could bite them. 6

Q: Then what was next? 7

A: I wrote another letter marked as Exhibit 6, which among other things asked for a 8

copy of the policy. 9

Q: Didn’t you already have a copy of the policy? 10

A: Yes, but this is a standard letter that we send out to all of our insureds who make a 11

claim. 12

Q: Did the Rankin respond to that letter? 13

A: No. 14


A: Actually, our attorney wrote the next letter, which is Exhibit 10, trying to set up 16

an examination under oath, which is a process that is provided for under the 17

policy to get to the truth. 18

Q: This letter also requests a copy of the policy; did you have a copy at that point? 19

A: Well, yes. 20

Q: So what happened next with respect to this claim? 21

A: We did the Examinations Under Oath of Stephen Rankin and his wife. We sent a 22

Subpoena Duces Tecum to them and requested that they bring certain documents. 23

NTC 2020 Regional



Q: Is Exhibit 14 the subpoena that you sent? 1

A: Yes. 2

Q: After the Examinations Under Oath were concluded, what did you do? 3

A: We continued investigating. 4

Q: Specifically, what were you investigating? 5

A: The claim. 6

Q: During that period of time, had you talked to the insurance agent to determine 7

how the application got filled out? 8

A: I talked to the insurance agent once to get a copy of his file, but I did not ask him 9

the question about the application. 10

Q: Why not? 11

A: I consciously decided not to because we had not concluded our investigation. 12

Q: What else did you do to investigate this matter? 13

A: I sent another investigator out to talk to all the employees of the tenant in the 14

building to see what they knew about the cause of the fire. 15

Q: How long was that investigator in Armadillo talking to witnesses? 16

A: About a week, as I recall. 17

Q: Did the investigator talk to the agent to see how the “no” answer got on Question 18

3 of the application? 19

A: No, that investigator’s job was to talk to the witnesses at the business. 20

Q: Did you do anything else to investigate? 21

A: I sent a different investigator to Armadillo to interview other Paymore agents in 22

the area to see if the Rankins had ever applied for insurance at their agencies. I 23

NTC 2020 Regional



wanted to know if they’d filled out other applications where that same question 1

was answered differently. 2

Q: How many Paymore agents did your second investigator talk to? 3

A: All of them within a 20 mile radius, so maybe a dozen. 4

Q: Find anything useful? 5

A: Nothing at all. 6

Q: Did this second investigator talk to the actual agent who took the actual 7

application here? 8

A: That was not her job. 9

Q: Where does the claim stand now? 10

A: Well, after the Examinations Under Oath, about 2 months later, the Rankins sued 11

Paymore for nonpayment of the claim. After the litigation started we put 12

everything on hold. 13

Q: And what is the present status of the claim? 14

A: After Mr. Rankin’ unfortunate death, we decided to go ahead and pay the claim. 15

Q: How about the mortgage? 16

A: Yeah, we paid that, too. 17

Q: How long after you received the notice of claim did you finally accept the claim 18

and pay the amount owed? 19

A: That was September 10, 2018. 20

Q: Is that an unusual amount of time for Paymore to pay a claim? 21

A: We keep statistics on that kind of thing, of course. Our normal practice, in the 22

absence of really suspicious circumstances, is to pay within the statutory deadline 23

NTC 2020 Regional



in any given state. So probably 55 to 60 days is the norm. If there’s a question 1

about the claim, then the average time stretches somewhat to 250 to 300 days. On 2

average, that is. Some faster, some slower. 3

Q: Did you ever determine the origin and cause of the fire? 4

A: Yes, I hired an origin and cause investigator. He did several interviews and 5

looked into the question pretty thoroughly. He determined that the fire was started 6

by an employee of one of the tenants in the building. 7

Q: How did the employee start the fire? 8

A: He was using an acetylene cutting torch near an area where some gasoline was 9

stored. Some slag from his cutting operation apparently ignited one of the rags 10

and that was all she wrote. 11

Q: So what was the final determination as to origin and cause? 12

A: Well the fire marshal determined that the cause was accidental, and we never 13

disagreed with that. 14

Q: To this day, have you ever talked with the agent, Taylor Smith? 15

A: Why would I do that now that we’ve paid the claim? 16

Q: Do you know what the agent would say about the answer on the application? 17

A: Again, why would I care? We’ve generously paid the claim. 18

NTC 2020 Regional

DEPOSITION OF B.B. THOMPSON JULY 18, 2019

DEPOSITION OF B.B. THOMPSON PAGE 1 OF 7


A: My name is B.B. Thompson. 2

Q: What does B.B. stand for? 3

A: It stands for B.B. My parents were not very imaginative. 4

Q: What is your occupation or profession? 5

A: I am an investigator. I generally work for insurance companies like Paymore 6

Specialty Insurance Company. 7

Q: Where were you raised? 8

A: In the Polar region. 9

Q: You mean like at the North Pole? 10

A: No, I’m talking about near the town of Polar, Lonestar. 11

Q: Did they have a high school in Polar? 12

A: No, we had to catch a bus over to another town to go to high school. 13

Q: Did you graduate from that high school? 14

A: Yes, I graduated from Alpine High School. 15

Q: What did you do after that? 16

A: I attended college at the University of North Lone Star, which is in Dimetap, 17

Lonestar. 18

Q: Did you get a degree? 19

A: Yes, I got a degree in Criminal Justice. 20

Q: What did you do after college? 21

A: I went into the military service and became a military policeman. 22

Q: Were you honorably discharged? 23

NTC 2020 Regional



A: Generally. 1

Q: Meaning “yes,” you were honorably discharged? 2

A: Meaning I received a general discharge. 3

Q: What did you do after your military career was over? 4

A: I became an investigator with the Lone Star Attorney General’s Office. 5

Q: What kinds of things did you investigate? 6

A: A variety of things. We investigated lottery fraud, we investigated violations of 7

the bathroom bill, and we investigated financial crimes of different kinds. I spent 8

the last 5 years of my career there investigating for the Lone Star Department of 9

Insurance. We were investigating violations of the Insurance Code. 10

Q: How long ago did you leave the Attorney General’s Office? 11

A: About 5 years now. I went into my own private practice, investigating different 12

kinds of things. 13

Q: Were you employed by Paymore Specialty Insurance Company to investigate the 14

circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Rankin? 15

A: Yes, Paymore paid me to do a thorough investigation into the facts and 16

circumstances surrounding this alleged suicide. 17

Q: What did you review in connection with your investigation? 18

A: I looked at the police report, the fire marshal’s report, the autopsy report, and I 19

have read all the depositions that were taken in this case. As I understand it, mine 20

is the last deposition to be taken. 21

NTC 2020 Regional



Q: Did you reach any conclusions regarding whether the death of Mr. Rankin was in 1

fact a suicide caused by Paymore’s slight delay in paying the insurance proceeds 2

on his burned building? 3

A: I concluded that the manner of death was questionable, but most likely not 4

suicide, and I concluded that Paymore has done absolutely nothing to cause a 5

person like Mr. Rankin to take his own life. 6

Q: Why do you question the cause or manner of death? 7

A: First, I questioned the Fire Marshal’s conclusions that the fire was accidental. I 8

find it difficult to believe, based on research I’ve done myself, that a piece of slag 9

from a cutting torch could remain hot enough to ignite an oily rag from a distance 10

of 5 feet. I might have become jaded, but it just seems unlikely. 11

Q: Do you have some alternative explanation for the cause or origin of the fire? 12

A: Not specifically. But if you put the questionable cause that the Fire Marshall 13

found with some of the other relevant facts, then you’ve got a real conundrum. 14

Q: What is it? 15

A: A conundrum is a difficult situation to explain. 16

Q: I know what a conundrum is, I’m asking what you think points to a cause or 17

origin of this fire that is different than what the Fire Marshall found? 18

A: Oh, that’s easy. Mr. Rankin was in deep financial trouble, not just at the time of 19

his death, but well before that. The price of oil had gone in the tank, and people 20

were not doing much drilling. When they are not doing drilling, they don’t need 21

perforation services, and when they don’t need perforation services, they don’t 22

NTC 2020 Regional



need Rankin. His business was way down in the last couple of years. He had a 1

large debt on the building, and the business was losing money. 2


A: Yes, that is the report of Leonard S. Kinnard, the expert you hired to look into the 4

claims for money that are being made in this case. 5

Q: What conclusion do you draw from this report? 6

A: The conclusion I draw is that if Mr. Rankin committed suicide, it wasn’t because 7

the insurance company was engaged in some slight delay in payment. It was 8

because he’d gotten in over his head with that building, and was suffering the 9

adverse consequences well before the fire. Frankly, it seems likely he started the 10

fire to get rid of the building and collect on the insurance. 11

Q: You seem to have some question about whether this was even a suicide; what is it 12

you’re thinking in that regard? 13

A: That brings us to the really interesting circumstances in this case. I discovered 14

through my investigation, through talking to friends of the decedent and others, 15

that Mr. Rankin was having an extramarital affair prior to his demise. 16

Q: What did you learn in that regard? 17

A: I learned that he was engaged in an affair with the wife of a friend of his, a guy 18

named Bill Dunn, which is really unacceptable behavior. I also learned that his 19

friend found out about the affair about 2 months before Rankin died, and 20

confronted Rankin about it. Dunn told Rankin that he was going to kill him if he 21

didn’t stay away from his wife. 22

NTC 2020 Regional



Q: We’ve been told that Mr. Rankin did not own a pistol, yet the death was caused 1

by a gunshot wound from a pistol; where’d he get the pistol? 2

A: That’s another really interesting part. His friend owned the pistol. I don’t know 3

how he got ahold of that pistol, but I can tell you that his friend kept it in a bed 4

side table in his master bedroom at his house. 5

Q: Have you confronted Mr. Dunn or his wife with this information? 6

A: Yes, I asked them where they were at or about the time of Mr. Rankin’ death. 7

They told me they had gone to see a movie called Trippple Tappp. It’s a film noir 8

based on a book by Gary Winters. 9

Q: Did you try to verify that? 10

A: I did not. It didn’t seem worth the effort. They seemed to be real believable and 11

reputable. 12

Q: Did you do any investigation into the circumstances surrounding the application 13

for insurance. 14

A: Yes, I wanted to know whether there were explosives in the building not just at 15

the time of the fire but, more importantly at the time the application was signed by 16

Mr. Rankin. 17

Q: What did you find out in that regard? 18

A: I found out that Mr. Rankin always had explosives in the building. Explosives 19

were integral to the operation of his business. 20

Q: Can you identify Exhibits 16, 17 and 18? 21

NTC 2020 Regional



A: Yes, these are manufacture safety data sheets. Exhibit 16 is the MSDS sheet for 1

shaped charges. Exhibit 17 is the MSDS chart for detonator cord, and Exhibit 18 2

is the MSDS sheet for primers or blasting caps as they are called in the business. 3

Q: Looking at Exhibit 16, what is the main ingredient of a shaped charge? 4

A: That would be C4, a plastic explosive. You can see right here on the sheet that the 5

manufacture calls it an explosive. 6

Q: What about Exhibit 17? 7

A: That’s the MSDS sheet for the detonator cord. The detonator cord contains a 8

substance called PETN. That stuff is actually more explosive than C-4. And the 9

manufacture classifies it as an explosive right here on the sheet. 10

Q: Finally, what is Exhibit 18? 11

A: Again, that’s the MSDS sheet for blasting caps. And you can see again that the 12

manufacture refers to these as explosives. 13

Q: What is Exhibit 19? 14

A: That is an invoice showing that shaped charges, detonator cord, and blasting caps 15

were all delivered to the new building the week before the application was signed. 16

Q: Is Exhibit 7 the application for the policy of insurance? 17

A: Yes. 18

Q: Who signed the invoice? 19

A: Mrs. Rankin, as a matter of fact. 20

Q: Did you try to talk to the insurance agent to see how the erroneous answer got on 21

the application? 22

A: No, I was never asked to do that. 23

NTC 2020 Regional



Q: If it was determined that Mrs. Rankin filled out the application, what effect would 1

that have had on their insurance claim? 2

A: The claim would be denied, of course. 3

Q: What effect would that have had on Mr. Rankin’s financial situation? 4

A: My investigation showed that he had to have the insurance proceeds to stay afloat. 5

Given the oil prices and the downturn in his perforating business, he would never 6

have re-built that building, and every dime of the insurance money would have 7

been absorbed in paying off his other debts. In our business, we call that a perfect 8

storm. A guy could kill himself over that kind of situation. But in my opinion, he 9

didn’t. 10

NTC 2020 Regional

NTC 2020 Regional

SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY

February 3, 2017 Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Rankin 31956 Tragic Commons Armadillo, Lone Star 79334 Claim Number: Policy Number: Loss Date: Loss Location: Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rankin

SA-00345689-220345 PM5158794 02/3/2017 225 S. 6th Street, Armadillo, Lone Star

Pursuant to Lone Star law, because we have not yet resolved your claim, we are required to notify you of the reason(s) for the delay in doing so. The claim remains open because: • Our investigation is not yet complete because: we continue to investigate the cause of the

fire and the extent of damage. This is a rather brief explanation of the reason(s) for delay. We know that filing a claim can be stressful, and we will do everything we can to make the process fast, friendly and fair. If you have any questions about the status of your claim, please give me a call. I will be happy to discuss the case with you. Sincerely, TIM CONWAY Claim Examiner

EXHIBIT 3

PAYMORE

NTC 2020 Regional

* D E P & & & & 1 *

CERTIFIED RETUR N RECEIPT REQUESTED AND REGULAR U.S.MAIL

March 6, 2017

Mr. Stephen Rankin Mrs. Jeanine Rankin 31956 Tragic Commons Armadillo, LS 79334 Insured: Stephen & Jeanine Rankin Date of Loss: February 3, 2017 (�re) Loss Location: 225 S. 6th Street, Armadillo, Lone Star 79334 Claim No.: SA-00345689-220345 Policy No.: PM5158794

DEMAND FOR PROOF AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rankin:

Paymore Speciality Insurance Company ("Paymore") continues to acknowledge your claim under policy PBP 265950102 for a loss at your property located at 225 S. 6 th Street, Armadillo, Lone Star, having reportedly occurred on February 3, 2017 and having been reported to us on February 4, 2017. Before we can pay any policy bene�t, Paymore must be able to fully investigate and determine if the policy is valid, if the claim is valid, and the extent to which any coverage applies to the loss. We would also like to advise you that in investigating, negotiating, settling or declining your claim, we reserve our rights under the policy to decline coverage to you "and anyone claiming coverage under the policy." We also do not seek to have you waive any rights which you or others making claims under the policy may have. The failure of Paymore to cite any further terms, conditions, exclusions, or defenses under the insurance policy in question shall not be construed as a waiver of any further rights which Paymore may have to assert under the policy. As you are aware, as the insured, you are required to comply with all of the Policy requirements. Your policy includes a CP 00 10 04 02 Building and Personal Property Coverage Form which outlines your duties In the Policy, as follows: E. Loss Conditions

The following conditions apply in addition to the Common Policy Conditions and the Commercial Property Conditions.

3. Dutles In The Event Of Loss Or Damage

a. You must see that the following are done in the event of loss or damage to Covered Property:

(1) Notify the police if a law may have been broken.

(2) Give us prompt notice of the loss or damage. Include a description of the property involved.

(3) As soon as possible, give us a description of how, when and where the loss or damage occurred.

(4) Take all reasonable steps to protect the Covered Property from further damage , and keep a record of your expenses necessary to protect the Covered Property, for consideration in the settlement of the claim. This will not increase the Limit of Insurance. However, we will not pay for any subsequent loss or damage resulting from a cause of loss that is not a Covered Cause of Loss. Also, if feasible, set the damaged property aside and in the best possible order for examination.

EXHIBIT 4

PAY M O R ESPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

NTC 2020 Regional

* D E P & & & & 2 *

(5) At our request, give us complete inventories of the damaged and undamaged property. Include quantities,costs,values and amount of loss

claimed.

(6) As often as may be reasonably required,permit us to inspect the property proving the loss or damage and examine your books and records.

Also permit us to take samples of damaged and undamaged property for

inspection, testing and analysis, and permit us to make copies from your books

and records.

(7) Send us a signed, sworn proof of loss containing the information we request to investigate the claim. You must do this within 60 days after our request. We will supply you with the necessary forms.

(8) Cooperate with us in the investigation or settlement of the claim.

b. We may examine any insured under oath, while not in the presence of any

other Insured and at such times as may be reasonably required, about

any matter relating to this Insurance or the claim, including an insured's books

and records. In the event of an examination, an insured's answers must be

signed.

Your policy also includes a CP 0142 03 12 Lone Star Changes endorsement, which states

in part: D. Under the Duties In The Event Of Loss Or Damage Loss Condition:

b. The provision requiring signed, sworn proof of loss is replaced by the following:

Send us a signed, sworn proof of loss containing the information we request to investigate the claim. You must do this within 91days after our request. We will supply you with the necessary forms.

Your policy also includes a CP 10 30 0402 Causes of Loss Special Form that states in part:

A. Covered Causes Of Loss

When Special is shown in the Declarations, Covered Causes of loss means Risks Of Direct Physical loss unless the loss is:

1. Excluded in Section B., Exclusions; or

2. limited in Section C. ,limitations; that follow.

B. Exclusions

1. We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.

2. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following

******************************

h. Dishonest or criminal act by you, any of your partners, members, officers, managers, employees (including leased employees), directors, trustees, authorized representatives or anyone to whom you entrust the property for any purpose:

(1) Acting alone{)r in collusion with others; or

(2) Whether or not occurring during the hours of employment.

This exclusion does not apply to acts of destruction by your employees (including leased employees);but theft by employees (Including leased employees) is not covered.

NTC 2020 Regional

* D E P & & & & 3 *

Your policy also includes a CP 00 90 07 88 Commercial Property Conditions form that states In pertinent part:

A. CONCEALMENT,MISREPRESENTATION OR FRAUD

This Coverage Part is void in any case of fraud by you as it relates to this Coverage Part at any time. It is also void if you or any other insured, at any time, intentionally conceal or misrepresent a material fact concerning:

1. This Coverage Part;

2. The Covered Property;

3. Your interest in the Covered Property; or

4. A claim under this Coverage Part.

B. Legal Action Against Us

1. The legal Action Against Us Commercial Property Condition is replaced by the following,

except as provided In B.2.below:

LEGAL ACTION AGAINST US

No one may bring a legal action against us under this Coverage Part unless:

a. There has been full compliance with all of the terms of this Coverage Part; and

b. The action is brought within 2 years and one day after the date on which the direct

physical loss or damage occurred.

We have also included a blank Proof of Loss form for you to complete. We request that you complete this form and return it back to us in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope within the requisite time shown above. It appears that the above provisions may apply to the facts of your case. By limiting policy

reference to those cited, Paymore does not waive other policy provisions. The policy in its

entirety is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in this letter. Consequently,

Paymore is fully and formally reserving its rights set forth in the policy of insurance with you.

Neither this letter nor any act, past or future, by any representative of Paymore should be

construed to waive any of the terms, requirements and conditions of our insurance policy, nor

should our actions be construed as either an admission or denial of our company's liability to

pay any proceeds of this policy, or as a waiver of any right, claim or potential defense

thereunder.

It is possible that there are additional reasons (other than those cited above) why coverage

might not apply. In spite of these potential coverage limitations, we will proceed to investigate

this claim. However, we specifically, reserve our right to rely on the policy language, and to

deny coverage for any valid reason that may appear.

Respectfully,

Kim Conway Property General Adjuster 619-349-9238 Paymore Insurance Company

NTC 2020 Regional

NTC 2020 Regional

March 21, 2016 CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Stephen Rankin Mrs. Jeanine Rankin 31956 Tragic Commons Armadillo, LS 79334 Insured: Stephen & Jeanine Rankin Date of Loss: February 3, 2017 (�re) Loss Location: 225 S. 6th Street, Armadillo, Lone Star 79334 Claim No.: SA-00345689-220345 Policy No.: PM5158794 RESERVATION Of: RIGHTS Dear Mr.and Mrs. Rankin: Paymore Speciality Insuranc e Company ("Paymore") continues to acknowledge your claim under policy PM55158794 for a loss at your property located at 225 S. 6th Street, Armadillo, Lone Str having occurred on February 3, 2017 and having been reported to us on February 4, 20177. Paymore also acknowledges receipt of your execu ted Proof of Loss received by fax on March 16, 2017. Before we can pay any policy bene�t, Paymore must be able to fully investigate and determine if the policy is valid, if the claim is valid, and the extent to which any coverage applies to the loss. Pl ease be advised that Paymore is holding the proof of loss without action at this time , pending completion of our investigation and eva luation of your claim including, but not limited to the completion of your examination under oath speci�cally, we refer you to the Building and Personal Property Coverage Form CP 00 10 04 02 ,pages 8-9 of 13 ,which· states:

E. Loss Conditions The following conditions apply in addition to the Common Policy Conditions and the Commercial Property Conditions. 3.Duties In The Event of Loss Or Damage

EXHIBIT 6

PAY M O R ESPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

NTC 2020 Regional

b. We may examine any insured under oath, while not in the presence of any other insured and at such times as may be reasonably required, about any matter relating to this insurance or the claim, including an insured's books and records. In the event of an examination, an insured's answers must be signed.

We would also like to advise you that in investigating, negotiating, settling or declining your claim, we reserve our rights under the policy to decline coverage to you and anyone claiming coverage under the policy. We also do not seek to have you waive any rights which you or others making claims under the policy may have. The failure of Paymore to cite any further terms, conditions, exclusions, or defenses under the Insurance policy in question shall not be construed as a waiver of any further rights which Paymore may have to assert under the policy. By limiting policy references to those provisions cited, Paymore does not waive other policy provisions. The policy in its entirety is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in this Jetter. Consequently,Paymore is fully and formally reserving its rights set forth in the policy of insurance with you. It has come to our attention that there may be an issue with a misrepresentation in your application of insurance. Specifically,the application that you submitted to Paymore, which Paymore relied upon to write the policy, stated that explosives were not kept on the property. The investigation of this claim has revealed that explosives were kept on the premises. Further information is needed from you so that Paymore can determine the impact, if any, that this may have on coverage. As such, we are requesting that our attorney contact you to schedule an Examination under Oath. Neither this letter nor any act, past or future, by any representative of Paymore should be construed to waive any of the terms, requirements and conditions of our insurance policy, nor should our actions be construed as either an admission or denial of our company's liability to pay any proceeds of this policy, or as a waiver of any right. aim or potential defense thereunder. It is possible that there are reasons (other than those cited above) why coverage might not apply. In spite of these potential coverage limitations, we will proceed to investigate this claim. However. we specifically, reserve our right to rely on the policy language, and to deny coverage for any valid reason that may appear. Respectfully, Kim Conway Property General Adjuster

NTC 2020 Regional

Taylor Smith AgencyArmadillo, LS

4/30/16

5/1/16 5/1/17

Stephen & Jeanine Rankin 31956 Tragic CommonsArmadillo, LS 79334

225 S. 6th Street, Armadillo, Lone Star 79334

EXHIBIT 7

NTC 2020 Regional

NTC 2020 Regional

PAY M O R ES P E C I A L I T Y I N S U R A N C E C O M PA N Y

EXHIBIT 8

NTC 2020 Regional

ARMADILLO FIRE DEPARTMENT INCIDENT REPORT

FIRE LOCATION: 225 S. 6TH STREET, ARMADILLO, LONE STAR DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2017 REPORTED BY: ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL BATTALION CHIEF: CLAY MOORE (BATTALION 1) NARRATIVE Engine 2 (“E2”), Engine 3 (“E3”) , Tanker 1 (“Tl”), Mobile Command 4 (“M4”), Mobile Command 1 (“M1”), Operations 1 (“Ops 1”), Quail Creek Volunteer Fire Department (“CVFD”) and Battalion Chief (“800”) were dispatched to 225 S. 6th Street in Armadillo for a structure fire . Enroute dispatch advised the anonymous caller stated that waste oil was on fire inside the structure. He also advised that this building contains stored oil, oxygen, acetylene, and other flammables. The caller also advised the business next door has explosives. QCVFD 1200 arrived on scene and reported heavy smoke showing. 1200 also reported the fire would be in the back of the building. M4 arrived to find a large commercial structure with heavy smoke showing from the roof area. 800 arrived and assumed Command from M4. M4 was then assigned to A side of building. QCFVD 1250 gallon pumper arrived with structural fire fighters onboard. They were assigned to set up on the D side and make an offensive attack. E2 arrived and were also assigned to an offensive attack on the D side. Command was met by a business/building representative who was on scene. He advised the fire was in a used oil container with an unknown quantity. He drew a layout of the building in the sand locating the fire location, nearby exposures which were oxygen, acetylene, equipment, paint with explosives contained inside the structure. He did not know the amount or what kind of explosives. He stated he would attempt to make contact with a rep from this business by phone to obtain more details on the explosives. He also advised there was no one inside the structure. Tl had arrived on scene and was ordered to set up dump tank operations to supply E2, this was located on the A/D corner. Tl had a 4 man crew, 2 set up the dump tank and the officer and a tailboard proceeded to perform a 360 and secure utilities. Tl then entered the structure to assist interior crews. E3 arrived and were ordered to proceed to the B side through the offices located on the A side. E2 reported knock down of the oil fire and that there was still fire in another room on the C/D corner. Tl reported there was fire in the center of the structure. E3 reported heavy smoke and possible fire in the upper office area. Unit E2 suffered mechanical problems and lost water pressure. All units were ordered out of the structure. Problems were corrected and crews reentered to extinguish. E3 was order to deploy a 2 hose line from unit E2 and deploy to the A/B corner to combat fire at this location. Unit E2 suffered mechanical problems again along with units E2, Tl, QVFD El were now out of water . All units were ordered out of the structure. Unit E3 was placed in position on the A side and took over pumping operations from Unit E2. Hose lines were transferred to E3 . Strategy went from offensive to defensive 2 hose lines were utilized in

EXHIBIT 9NTC 2020 Regional

a defensive manner on the A and B sides until E3 was out of water . More tankers had been requested to the scene and were either still enroute or enroute for more water , no hydrants were close to scene. A representative from the wireline company arrived and Command gathered info. about the explosives within the structure. Information given was that there was a possibility the explosives within the structure could blow up the building. Fire Marshal (“902”) had arrived. With the knowledge that there was possibility of explosion great enough to level the structure, a Command decision was made to pull all units to a safe area. Fire fighting operations had temporarily ceased at this time. Fire Chief (“900”) arrived. A new tactical plan was formed to deploy ground monitors on the A and B sides at a distance out of the collapse zone. Units were positioned with dump tank operations for water supply. This process continued until the fire was brought under control. On 3 different occasions attack was suspended due out of water, tankers were unable to keep up with the large water flow needs. Once it was safe Battalion Chief and 902 began investigation into the cause. Units remained on scene until all hot spots were extinguished. Command was terminated. Clay Moore Battalion Chief

NTC 2020 Regional

LAW OFFICES OF KIRK COOPER ATTORNEY AT LAW

1528 Justice Avenue Armadillo, Lone Star 76707

March 23, 2017

Via CMRRR and Regular U.S. Mail Mr. Stephen and Mrs. Jeanine Rankin 31956 Tragic Commons Armadillo, LS 79334

Insureds: Stephen & Jeanine Rankin Date of Loss: February 3, 2017 (fire) Loss Location: 225 S. 6th Street, Armadillo, Lone Star 79334 Claim No.: SA-00345689-220345 Policy No.: PM5158794

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rankin:

This letter is a follow-up to the letter you recently received from Kim Conway at Paymore Specialty Insurance Company ("Paymore''), and to advise you that my firm has been retained as counsel to represent Paymore regarding the above-referenced claim. We have been asked by Paymore to request an examination under oath of each of you, in accordance with the provisions of the above-referenced Policy. We would like to schedule these examinations to take place in Armadillo. If you have not done so already by the time you receive this letter, please contact me at the number listed below or by email at [email protected] to provide your availability for these examinations.

Paymore has not completed its investigation in this matter. The reason for the

continued investigation is that Paymore continues to have questions regarding the cause of the fire and the coverage for this claim. As such, Paymore must address these issues prior to completing its investigation of this claim. In addition to requesting your examinations under oath, Paymore is continuing to investigate this loss by investigating the loss.

Along with the examinations under oath, we request that you produce to us, as the

designated representative of Paymore, the below referenced records, at or before your examinations under oath. We will certainly be happy to accept copies, but will need to validate them against the originals. If you decide to provide copies, we will be happy to reimburse you for any expense involved in doing so. The records are as follows:

1. A copy of your insurance policy applicable to this loss.

2. All correspondence related to your procurement of the insurance policy and any changes or modifications of coverage and/or increases in values applicable to this loss (including correspondence with Paymore).

3. Any and all correspondence related to this claim.

EXHIBIT 10

NTC 2020 Regional

mailto:[email protected]

4. Any and all correspondence with your mortgage company within the last two years including, but not limited to payments thereon.

5. Any and all correspondence with your insurance ·agent since January 1, 2014 to the present. 6. Any and all documents, correspondence, brochures or other items which may bear on this claim. Paymore continues to reserve any and all of its rights and defenses that it may have in

connection with this claim or its Policy, notwithstanding any investigation or action that it may take or has taken in this matter. Additionally, Paymore reserves its rights on matters which it may discover during its continued investigation.

Furthermore, any investigation, procuring of estimates of fair market value, acceptance of

proof of loss or other agreements as to loss and damage shall be deemed to be for the benefit of the insured and not be construed as a waiver of any of the rights and defenses of Paymore under the Policy. Further you should be aware that your failure to cooperate by not providing documents or failing to provide Paymore with your sworn examinations under oath, may entitle Paymore to deny your claim on the basis of that alone. Therefore, we strongly urge you to contact us immediately concerning this matter.

In continuing its investigation, Paymore is not waiving any of the terms or conditions which

it is entitled to assert under the provisions of the Policy. Furthermore, such continued investigation shall not constitute an admission of liability with regard to coverage or with regard to the extent of the loss.

We look forward to speaking with you regarding the scheduling of your examinations under

oath. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and assistance. Sincerely, /S/ signed but not reviewed Kirk Cooper

NTC 2020 Regional

AUTOPSY REPORT 18-05135

I performed an autopsy on the body of Stephen "The Rock" Rankin at the

DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY, NOTREES MEDICAL CENTRE, NOTREES, LONE STAR on August

19, 2018.

From the anatomic and laboratory findings and pertinent history, I

ascribe the death to: GUNSHOT WOUND TO THE HEAD.

EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:

The body of STEPHEN RANKIN is that of a well-developed, svelt Caucasian male

stated to be 45 years old. The body weighs 184 pounds, measuring 69 inches from

crown to sole. The prolific hair on the scalp is black in color and straight.

The irides appear hazel with the pupils fixed and dilated. The body bears

several identifying tattoos, including a tattoo depicting four cavorting

penguins.

The head is normocephalic. Examination reveals a single wound to the left

temple showing stippling. There is no exit wound. There is no stellate

shaping to the wound, and there is no muzzle inprint.

CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM:

The heart weighs 290 grams, and has a normal size and configuration.

Dissection reveals no evidence of cardiovascular disease.

TOXICOLOGY:

A sample of right pleural blood as well as bile are submitted for toxicologic

analysis. Findings included levels of (1) fluoxetine (Prozac); (2) Sildenafil

(Viagra); (3) ethanol (Jack Daniels); and (4) a combination of ammonium

nitrate and aluminum. None of the trace drugs or chemicals was contributory

to death.

OPINION:

Death was caused by a wound to the head consistent with a gunshot wound.

Distance from the weapon to the entry wound could not be definitively

determined, but based on findings above could be anywhere from a few

centimeters up to several feet. Blood toxicology appears to be caused by

casual but repeated exposure to Tannerite.

The remainder of the autopsy revealed a normal, healthy adult male with

no congenital anomalies.

/s/ Dr. David Kitner, M.D.

CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER

August 31, 2018

NTC 2020 Regional

MARTYJ

Rectangle

MARTYJ

Rectangle

MARTYJ

Rectangle

MARTYJ

Typewritten Text

MARTYJ

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT 11

JENSEN AND HENSON INSURANCE BROKERS AND AGENTS

45 AVENUE DEL BELL BOOTLEG, LONE STAR

February 22, 2018

Ms. Laura Pratt Law Offices of Laura Pratt 2204 Flint Rock Parkway Armadillo, Lone Star 76377-1950

RE: Cause 17-006959-CV, Stephen and Jeanine Rankin v. Paymore Specialty Insurance

Company, in the 444th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Lone Star

Dear Ms. Pratt:

For 32 years, I was a property and casualty insurance agent, and for the past 11 years have been a partner in an insurance consulting firm. A detailed resume is available upon request along with a chronology of events and a list of the documents I have reviewed in connection with this case.

Throughout my 43 year career, I have dealt with issues regarding property insurance claims and have worked with my clients and insurance adjusters in settling many such claims in a timely basis.

This case arises out of a fire insurance claim which resulted from the Rankins’ building being totally destroyed by fire on February 3, 2017. They had purchased a Commercial Property Insurance policy from Paymore for the policy period of May 2, 2016-17.

It is my opinion that Paymore committed many violations of the Lone Star Insurance Code as enumerated below:

The first violation of the Lone Star Insurance Code Section 541.060. Unfair Settlement Practices by Paymore was when they provided false information to Stephen Rankin in a letter stating, "…we continue to investigate the cause of the fire and the extent of the damage." This statement was a lie because on as of the date of the letter, Paymore was no longer investigating the cause of the fire or the extent of the damage. The cause was known and they also knew the loss was a total loss. What Paymore was investigating, and which it withheld from the Rankins, was the answer to one question on the insurance application which inquired about explosives. This was a violation of (1) misrepresenting to a claimant a material fact or policy provision relating to coverage at issue.

Paymore’s second violation was when it sent a letter to the Rankins claiming to be reserving rights because of possible dishonest or criminal acts by the Rankins or their representatives. This was a dishonest statement because at that time Paymore already knew arson was not an issue and the cause

EXHIBIT 12

NTC 2020 Regional

of the fire was an accidental event. The letter did not mention the application for insurance or the question about explosives.

Paymore’s third violation of the Lone Star Insurance Code was of Section 542.055. RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM. That provision required no later than 15 days from the receipt of the notice of claim for the carrier to (3) request from the claimant all items, statements, and forms that the insurer reasonably believes, at that time, will be required from the claimant. In his deposition, Kim Conway admitted that before February 15, 2017, he had identified the issue determining whether it would deny or pay the claim as being whether the insured had intentionally misrepresented whether their building was exposed to explosives. Within those 15 days, the only thing requested by Paymore was a Proof of Loss which had nothing to do with their investigation of the claim. Therefore, 15 days later, Paymore had already violated Sec 542 by not requesting all items reasonably believed at that time it needed to complete its investigation.

Paymore's next violation was of Section 542.056. NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF CLAIM which provides, "an insurer shall notify a claimant in writing of the acceptance or rejection of a claim not later than the 15th business day after the date the insurer receives all items, statements, and forms required by the insurer to secure final proof of loss,” and (d) if the insurer is unable to accept or reject the claim within the period specified by Subsection (a) or (b), the insurer, within the same time, shall notify the claimant of the reasons that the insurer needs additional time. The insurer shall accept or reject the claim not later than the 45th day after the date the insurer notifies the claimant under this subsection. On March 6, since Paymore’s only question was to request the proof of loss and nothing else, on March 16 when the proof of loss was provided, would have been the date they received all items, statements, and forms required by the insurer to secure final proof of loss. Paymore was then required to give a response regarding either acceptance or rejection of the claim by March 31, 2017.

Paymore also violated Sec 541 and 542 on March 10 when they requested six items from the Rankins, none of which related to the only thing still being investigated which was whether the insured had intentionally misrepresented whether their building was exposed to explosives. One of the requests was for a copy of the policy when Paymore already had a certified copy in their claim file. Another of the requests was for a copy of the correspondence with the insurance agent, which the agent had provided on March 1. I personally attended the examination under oath and know from being there that all questions were answered and all requested documents provided.

Even if one assumes that Paymore should have received the extended period as a result of this request, the timeframe for a response within 15 days would have expired on June 17 and Paymore would still have been in violation Section 542. The continuing lack of good faith on the part of Paymore is evidenced by the fact that during this 15 day timeframe, Mr. Conway sent an email to the insurance agent stating he would contact the agent if he needed any additional information. This is not credible because Mr. Conway was purposely not talking to the agent, which avoided getting the answer to the only remaining question in Paymore’s investigation: who provided the information in the application? It would have been incredibly easy for Paymore to obtain the needed answer. I

know that because I personally met with the insurance agent and Stephen Rankin on April 21,

2017 and to quote the agent, “Jeanine did nothing wrong. We routinely answer those questions NO unless we know differently and in this case we didn’t know anything differently.”

NTC 2020 Regional

Paymore continued its consistent policy of failing to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim to which the insurers liability had become reasonably clear by sending a letter on July 7 stating it continued to investigate under its previous reservation of rights and then again requested the six items which had been answered under sworn testimony. This was in violation of section 541.060 (2).

The trigger date for payment of this claim was 60 days after March 16, 2017 when Paymore received the proof of loss which was the only information reasonably requested and required. If Paymore wanted any additional information, it should have been requested on March 6, 2017 when their only request was for a signed proof of loss. Sixty days after March 21 would have been May 20, 2016, when Paymore had not paid the claim and therefore violated Section 542.0586.

Paymore also violated the Delay in Payment of Claims Act and the policy provisions when they delayed the payment to Wells Fargo. A mortgagee is due payment for a claim under the Lone Star Changes endorsement, G.d. “if we deny your claim because of your actions or because you have failed to comply with the terms of this Coverage Part, the mortgage holder will still have the right to receive loss payment…” The payment to Wells Fargo did not occur until July 28, 2018 when this payment should have been made within 60 days after March 21, 2017. This inordinate delay caused Mr. Rankin to continue to have to make loan payments during the entire time Paymore delayed payment.

Paymore violated Section 705.005.NOTICE TO INSURED OF MISREPRESENTATIONS. This section allows Paymore to use misrepresentation in an application as a defense only if Paymore shows that before the 91st day after the date Paymore discovered the falsity of the representation it notified the insured that it did not intend to be bound by the policy.

Paymore knew of a possible misrepresentation on February 19, 2017 so the 91 days to use this defense expired around May 20, 2017. After that date Paymore continued to pursue the misrepresentation issue even though they could no longer use that as a defense. This is another example of bad faith in either not knowing the Insurance Statues or ignoring them.

In summary, this is by far the most egregious example of bad faith I have seen from an insurance company in my entire 43 year career. The answer to the only needed question was available any time after the fire and certainly when the insured submitted their proof of loss on March 21, 2017. In his deposition Kim Conway stated, “Before we had a chance to get in touch with the age nt , suit was filed. How could Paymore not have “had a chance” to ask the critical question to the agent for 18 months? Mr. Conway testified he had made a conscious decision not to ask that question of the agent. Paymore did not pay this claim until some 2 ½ years later. The information that Paymore had the day before they issued the claim check was the same information they had for over two years. The claims handling by Paymore was nothing less than total and utter irresponsibility for not paying a claim over two years in arrears, when the critical information the carrier said they must have had been so easily and readily available for 2 ½ years.

Subject to further discovery I reserve my right to amend my opinions.

Sincerely,

Chris Jensen, CPCU

NTC 2020 Regional

THE SUICIDE SOLUTION

Cary Tinker, M.D.

EXCERPTS

CHAPTER 1: DO I WANT TO DO THIS? IDEATION AND CAPACITY [excerpts]

Central to the concept of suicide is the capacity to form the requisite intent to take one’s own life. Many factors may impede the requisite intent, such as age related dementia, insanity or drug/alcohol intoxication. Simply put, if one cannot think clearly enough to form suicidal intent, one cannot be said to have committed suicide.

CHAPTER 4: AM I OLD ENOUGH TO DO THIS? THE ROLE OF AGE AND GENDER [excerpts]

Statistically significant relationships have been demonstrated between age, gender and probability of suicide. Specifically, men between the ages of 55 and 59 are 22% more likely to commit suicide than their younger or older counterparts. However, many persons, both male and female, become depressed as they near retirement at any age due to potential loss of income, loss of meaningful activity and loss of self-esteem. Thus, impending change in work related lifestyle is a statistically significant factor in suicide.

CHAPTER 7: TWICE THE TROUBLE! THE ROLE OF EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS [excerpts]

Extramarital affairs have been shown to have a statistically significant relationship with suicide rates. As the post-World War II generation (“Baby Boomers”) reach ages past 60 years, many persons of both genders have been shown to become more promiscuous, perhaps because they either missed or failed to participate in the lifestyle of the 1960’s. For whatever reason, many of these persons who are otherwise happily married become involved in extramarital affairs. While such affairs may provide a sense of regaining lost youth, the participants in affairs often find that it is highly stressful to maintain two or more intimate relationships simultaneously. This is likely due to the need for secrecy, the sense that the participant is betraying a longstanding marital relationship, and the likelihood that the affair itself betrays existing social relationships. Many affairs in this age group involve the spouses of close friends or business associates.

CHAPTER 15: AM I EQUIPPED TO DO THIS? THE ROLE OF ACCESS TO MEANS OF SUICIDE [excerpts]

Several studies demonstrate that people choose those means of suicide that are readily accessible. Not surprisingly, persons who do not own firearms rarely consider the use of a firearm in a suicide attempt.

EXHIBIT 13

NTC 2020 Regional

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

TO: STEPHEN AND JEANINE RANKIN YOU ARE COMMANDED TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR INSURANCE CLAIM WITH PAYMORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY ON THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 AT THE OFFICES OF KIRK COOPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LOCATED AT 1528 JUSTICE WAY, ARMADILLO, LONE STAR, BEGINNING AT 9:00 AM. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED TO BRING WITH YOU TO THE EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS OR OTHER TANGIBLE THINGS: 1. A copy of your insurance policy applicable to this loss.

2. All correspondence related to your procurement of the insurance policy and any changes or modifications of coverage and/or increases in values applicable to this loss (including correspondence with Paymore).

3. Any and all correspondence related to this claim.

4. Any and all correspondence with your mortgage company within the last two years including, but not limited to payments thereon.

5. Any and all correspondence with your insurance ·agent since January 1, 2014 to the present. 6. Any and all documents, correspondence, brochures or other items which may bear on this claim. HEREIN FAIL NOT OR BE SUBJECTED TO PENALTIES. /s/ Kirk Cooper Attorney at Law

EXHIBIT 14 NTC 2020 Regional

KINNARD & KIRKNEWTON CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ARMADILLO, LONE STAR

March 21, 2019

Kirk Cooper Law Offices of Kirk Cooper 1528 Justice Avenue Armadillo, Lone Star 76707

Re: STEPHEN & JEANINE RANKIN V. PAYMORE SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY

In the 444th District, Travis County, Texas Case Number: 17-006959-CV Our File Number: LK8622.56

Dear Mr. Cooper: You, on behalf of your client, the Defendant, Paymore Speciality Insurance Company, retained Kinnard & Kirknewton, and specifically, Leonard S. Kinnard CPA CFF, to assist in analyzing the economic damages alleged by the Plaintiffs in the aforementioned matter. The claimed damages have been alleged following a fire that occurred at the Plaintiffs’ building on or about February 3, 2017. As outlined in its Original Petition, the Plaintiffs have claimed several allegations against the Defendant, seeking unspecified “actual damages including…business loss”. Specifically, Plaintiffs are alleging “a total loss of $3,950,410” comprised of (1) loss from nonpayment of distributions/salary of $1,837,801; (2) the loss of lack of rental income for approximately 27-1/2 months in the amount of $342,411; and (3) the loss of the business at an estimated value of $1,770,198. Please note that my work involved an analysis of certain financial records. However, the scope of this engagement includes neither an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards of financial statements (i.e. statements of assets, liabilities and capital; income statements; statement of retained earnings and statements of cash flow) or an audit of income tax returns that may be presented and analyzed in this matter. Please understand I have no opinion as to the allegations proffered by the Plaintiffs, as those are legal issues. My opinions specifically address the economic damages asserted by Plaintiffs.

CLAIMED DAMAGES I began my analyses by reading the legal filings, EUOs, and depositions to obtain an understanding of the background of this matter. I proceeded to review the Hurst report in an effort to comprehend his assumptions and methodologies that yielded his opinion of “a total loss of $3,950,410”. I did note that Mr. Rankin testified in his deposition that the Plaintiffs received at least $500,000 in insurance proceeds from Berkley Oil & Gas pertaining to the fire. It is unclear if any of the monies were used to mitigate some of the damages being claimed by the Plaintiffs. I address each of the three separate categories of claimed damages in the following paragraphs.

EXHIBIT 15

NTC 2020 Regional

(1) Loss from Nonpayment of Distributions / Salary

The first category presented as damages is the loss from nonpayment of distributions / salary of $1,837,801. Plaintiff averaged the alleged salary of Mr. Rankin for the five years prior to the year the fire occurred. Please note that to-date, no financial or tax information has been produced to allow me to verify these amounts. Plaintiff computed a simple average for the 2014 through 2018 alleged salaries, yielding an amount of $363,880, as follows:

Year Alleged Annual Salary for Wayne Rankin

2014 $ 434,200 2015 $ 404,800

2016 $ 360,000

2017 $ 360,200

2018 $ 260,200

Total $ 1,819,400 Divided by Number of Years 5

Average Annual Multiple for the Five Years $ 363,880

Plaintiff proceeds to use this simple average to project Mr. Rankin’s salary for the 5 year time period between his death and the projected retirement date. Aside from not producing any financial or tax data to verify actual salaries, you will note that in the five years prior to the year of the fire, Mr. Rankin’s salary was on a distinct steady decline. Based on these facts and circumstances, the simple average employed by Plaintiff, in my opinion, overstates the projected future salary of Mr. Rankin. Furthermore, Mr. Rankin testified in his deposition that he chose not to rebuild or to lease an alternate or temporary space and that the reason for the cessation (of the business at the end of February 2018) was the lack of facilities. Mr. Rankin testified in his deposition that the business was profitable in 2017. Additionally, as mentioned previously in this report, Mr. Rankin testified in his deposition that the Fire in the Hole received at least $500,000 in insurance proceeds from Berkley Oil & Gas pertaining to the fire. Mr. Rankin states he purchased equipment; yet chose to not use the profits from 2017 or the insurance proceeds to rent temporary facilities. If he had done so, it is possible that the business could have continued to operate and the claim for nonpayment of distributions / salary may have been avoided. Assuming the claimed damages for nonpayment of distributions / salary is even recoverable, considering Mr. Rankin’s salary had decreased at a simple average of almost 12% annually in the 5 years before his death, one could reasonably assume Mr. Rankin’s salary in the five years after his death could have decreased 12% to $229,000 (rounded). Assuming (a) Mr. Rankin would have continued to work and draw a salary through age 70; (b) that there would be no further decrease in Mr. Rankin’s annual salary through his 70th birthday; and (c) the actual salary paid through August 23, 2023, is and would be equivalent to what Mr. Rankin then claimed, the cumulative lost salary might approximate $1,078,000. Both of the above methods assume no further salary has been or would be paid to Mr. Rankin beyond 2017. Obviously, to the extent any additional salary has been or would be paid to Mr. Rankin in 2018 through

2021, this would further reduce the resulting “lost” salary. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not made an effort to calculate the present value of any future lost earnings. Assuming a rate equivalent to the current “passbook savings” rate of 0.06%, the present value of claimed lost past and future earnings is $1,078,238.

NTC 2020 Regional

In sum, it is my opinion that the $1,837,801 presented for loss from nonpayment of distributions / salary is overstated.

(2) Loss of Lack of Rental Income for Approximately 27-1/2 Months A second element of damages presented by Plaintiff is the loss of lack of rental income for approximately 27-1/2 months in the amount of $342,411. As I understand, Plaintiff arrives at this figure based on a presumed annual rent from the tenants of the damaged building, which include (a) Mr. Rankin’s business, Fire in the Hole; and (b) Mr. Rankin’s son’s business. Plaintiff implies a $50,000 annual rent of each of these three businesses. This computes to a monthly rent of $12,500 total or $4,167 (rounded) per tenant per month. Plaintiff assumes a loss of rents period starting with the date of the fire, February 3, 2017, though May 31, 2019, which includes an assumed six-month construction period after receipt of insurance proceeds.

As stated, Plaintiff implies an annual rent. In Mr. Rankin’s EUO and deposition, he acknowledges there was no written lease between him and Mrs. Rankin, personally, as landlords, and their son or their son’s business. On page 17 of Mr. Rankin’s EUO, he testified that his agreement with his son regarding rent was “according to how well the businesses did each year, he would pay me a reasonable amount - - or a reasonable amount of rent, depending on how well the businesses did that particular year”. Additionally, it is unknown whether Mr. Rankin’s business, Fire in the Hole, paid rent to he and his wife, as owners of the building. As mentioned, there have been no financial or tax data produced in this matter which would allow me to determine if rent has been paid by any of the aforementioned businesses to the Rankins and the corresponding amounts. Yet a loss for lack of rental income of $342,411 is being sought.

Plaintiff’s implied rent is based on “That is a reasonable rental and consistent with what similar businesses would pay. For example, based on information from the owner, another wire line competitor in Travis County recently leased space for approximately $13,000 per month, and the Rankin's space, prior to the fire, was either equivalent or better for purposes of a wire line business.” In my opinion, based on the very limited data provided and the testimony of Mr. Rankin, the claim for loss of rental income has not been sufficiently substantiated.

(3) Loss of Business Value of $1,770,198 A third element of claimed damages presented by Plaintiff is the loss of the value of the business in the amountof $1,770,198. Plaintiff computes the average adjusted income at $253,610 for the2021 through 2016, or the five years prior to the year the fire occurred. She then applies an average Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, and Amortization (“EBITDA”) multiple of 6.98 to arrive at his valuation of $1,770,198. Applying a multiple to annual adjusted income or EBITDA is a commonly accepted method of attempting to value a business. However, using a simple average may not always be the most reasonable approach. Similar to the discussion above about salaries, note the declining Net Income / (Loss) before Federal Income Tax from 2012 through 2016. One potential contributing factor to this decline could have been the volatility in the oil and gas industry during those years. The business earned a $109,095 Net Profit in2012; by 2016 it is reflecting a Net Loss of $147,497, or a $256,592 negative shift in profitability over those five years. The Total Adjusted Income trend parallels the Net Profit or (Loss) trend, starting with $443,590 in 2012 to $5,050 in 2016, or a $438,540 downward shift over those five years. To utilize a straight average result of $253,610, which was in actuality, not achieved for the two immediate years prior to the fire, is, in my opinion, unreasonable. The method employed by Plaintiff does not sufficiently consider the obvious downward trend in the business’s profitability., as illustrated in the graph below:

NTC 2020 Regional

$500,000

$400,000

$300,000

Net Income / (Loss) Before FIT

Adjusted Income

$200,000

$100,000

$-

$(100,000)

$(200,000)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

OPINION In my opinion, the lack of supporting financial and tax documentation and the unreasonableness and non- substantiation associated with the assumptions employed by Plaintiff, as outlined in this report, raise concerns regarding the reliability of her opinion of “a total loss of $3,950,410”. With regard to the loss of nonpayment of distributions / salary as well as the loss of business value, Plaintiff has not appeared to have considered the demonstrable decline in both salary to Mr. Rankin and profits of the business in the five years preceding the fire, which consequently results, in my opinion, in overstated damages for these.

NTC 2020 Regional

Safety Data Sheetaccording to 1907/2006/EC

Printing date: 27 October 2014 Revision: 27 October 2014

SECTION 1: Identification of the substance/mixture and of the company/ undertaking

· 1.1 Product identifier· Trade name: Shaped Charges, Division 1.1

(cutters, junk shots, linear shaped charges, perforators, severing tools)· Other means of identification: No other identifiers· 1.2 Relevant identified uses of the substance or mixture and uses advised againstNo further relevant information available.

· Application of the substance / the mixture: Explosive product.· 1.3 Details of the supplier of the Safety Data Sheet· Manufacturer/Supplier:Owen Oil Tools LP12001 County Road 1000P.O. Box 765Godley, TX 76044 USAPhone: +1 (817) 551-0660

· 1.4 Emergency telephone number:ChemTel Inc.(800)255-3924 (North America)+1 (813)248-0585 (International)

SECTION 2: Hazards identification· 2.1 Classification of the substance or mixture· Classification according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008Expl. 1.1 H201 Explosive; mass explosion hazard.

· 2.2 Label elements· Labelling according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008The product is classified and labelled according to the CLP regulation.

· Hazard pictograms

GHS01

· Signal word Danger· Hazard statementsH201 Explosive; mass explosion hazard.

· Precautionary statementsP210 Keep away from heat, hot surfaces, sparks, open flames and other ignition

sources. No smoking.P250 Do not subject to grinding/shock/friction.P280 Wear protective gloves/protective clothing/eye protection/face protection.P370+P372+P380+P373 In case of fire: Explosion risk. Evacuate area. DO NOT fight fire when fire

reaches explosives.P401 Store in accordance with local/regional/national/international regulations.

(Cont'd. on page 2)

45.2.18

NTC 2020 Regional

martyj

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT 16

martyj

Typewritten Text

NTC 2020 Regional

martyj

Rectangle

martyj

Rectangle

martyj

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT 17

NTC 2020 Regional

martyj

Rectangle

martyj

Rectangle

martyj

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT 18

PRIME TIME

WELL SERVICE SUPPLIES2828 28th Street

Austin, Lone Star 76458BILL TO: Fire in the Hole, Inc. 225 S. 6th Street Armadillo, LS

DELIVER TO: same

DATE: September 3, 2016

Quantity Description Total Price

200

100

50

Shaped Charges [Division 1.1]

Feet Seismic Det Cord [Division 1.1]

Oil*Star Series Primers [Division 1.1]

$4,109.14

$2,945.91

$1,238.21

$8,293.26TOTAL DUE

INVOICE

EXHIBIT 19

NTC 2020 Regional

EXHIBIT 20

NTC 2020 Regional

Email | Paymore Web

From: Taylor Smith [[email protected]] Sent: April 4, 2017 To: Riley Bralley Subject: Stephen/Jeanine Rankin claim Mr. Bralley— I write to you as the supervisor of your adjuster, Kim Conway. We have a claim on a fire loss on an insured named Stephen/Jeanine Rankin, and your company is doing everything they can to avoid paying it. They are even having these folks give EUOs. I’ve known the Rankins for years, and they are honest, hard working folks. This fire was not arson and it was not intentional. The fire department tried to put it out but ran out of water because of the remote location of the building. There were some explosives in the building, but they did not explode. Your guy Conway has been a total jerk to the Rankins. He’s implied all kinds of criminal conduct on their part. Paymore needs to pay this claim and right away or it will wind up in court. Feel free to call me if you need any additional info. Taylor Smith

EXHIBIT 21

NTC 2020 Regional

1y

Mo TuWe Th Fr Sa Su1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 25 2627 28 29 30 31

August 2018Mo TuWe Th Fr Sa Su

1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 2324 25 26 27 28 29 30

September 2018August 12, 2018Sunday

Daily Task ListArrange By: Due Date

Notes

7 am

8 00

9 00

10 00

11 00

12 pm

1 00

2 00

3 00

4 00

5 00

6 00

Damn we’re in a tight spot. I’ve destroyed

12 Sunday

my marriage and now my dad’s

business is destroyed. I’ve

survived all kinds of ups and

downs but how do you come back from this?

EXHIBIT 22NTC 2020 Regional

NO. 19-000711-CV JEANINE RANKIN, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE 725th DISTRICT COURT AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE § ESTATE OF STEPHEN RANKIN, § DECEASED, § § IN AND FOR Plaintiff, § v. § § TRAVIS COUNTY PAYMORE SPECIALITY § INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., § § Defendant. § STATE OF LONE STAR

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Members of the jury, I shall now instruct you on the law that you must follow in

reaching your verdict. It is your duty as jurors to decide the issues, and only those issues,

that I submit for determination by your verdict. In reaching your verdict, you should

consider and weigh the evidence, decide the disputed issues of fact, and apply the law on

which I shall instruct you to the facts as you find them, from the evidence.

The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of the witnesses, all

exhibits received into evidence, and all facts that may be admitted or agreed to by the

parties. In determining the facts, you may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.

You may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead

you to draw from the facts shown by the evidence in this case, but you should not

speculate on any matters outside the evidence.

In determining the believability of any witness and the weight to be given the

testimony of any witness, you may properly consider the demeanor of the witness while

testifying; the frankness or lack of frankness of the witness; the intelligence of the

NTC 2020 Regional

witness; any interest the witness may have in the outcome of the case; the means and

opportunity the witness had to know the facts about which the witness testified; the

ability of the witness to remember the matters about which the witness testified; and the

reasonableness of the testimony of the witness, considered in the light of all the evidence

in the case and in light of your own experience and common sense.

The issue for your determination is whether the death of Stephen Rankin was

caused by the intentional infliction of emotional distress by Paymore Specialty Insurance

Company, Inc.

To find “intentional infliction of emotional distress” you must find from a

preponderance of the evidence: (1) that Paymore Specialty Insurance Company, Inc.

acted intentionally or recklessly, (2) that it’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, (3)

that the conduct caused Stephen Rankin emotional distress, and (4) that the emotional

distress was severe.

Answer “Yes” or “No” to all questions unless otherwise instructed. A “Yes”

answer must be based on a preponderance of the evidence unless you are otherwise

instructed. If you do not find that a preponderance of the evidence supports a “Yes”

answer, then answer “No.” The term “preponderance of the evidence” means the greater

weight and degree of credible evidence admitted in this case. Whenever a question

requires an answer other than “Yes” or “No,” your answer must be based on a

preponderance of the evidence unless you are otherwise instructed.

At this point in the trial, you, as jurors, are deciding if the death of Stephen Rankin

was caused by the intentional infliction of emotional distress by Paymore Specialty

Insurance Company, or from some other cause. If you find Paymore Specialty Insurance

NTC 2020 Regional

Company was at fault in whole or in part, you will hear additional argument from the

attorneys and you will hear additional witnesses testify concerning damages. Until that

time, you are not to concern yourselves with any question of damages. Your verdict must

be based on the evidence that has been received and the law on which I have instructed

you. In reaching your verdict, you are not to be swayed from the performance of your duty

by prejudice, sympathy, or any other sentiment for or against any party. When you retire to

the jury room, you should select one of your members to act as foreperson, to preside over

your deliberations, and to sign your verdict. You will be given a verdict form, which I shall

now read and explain to you.

(READ VERDICT FORM)

When you have agreed on your verdict, the foreperson, acting for the jury, should

date and sign the verdict form and return it to the courtroom. You may now retire to

consider your verdict.

NTC 2020 Regional

NO. 19-000711-CV JEANINE RANKIN, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE 725th DISTRICT COURT AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE § ESTATE OF STEPHEN RANKIN, § DECEASED, § § IN AND FOR Plaintiff, § v. § § TRAVIS COUNTY PAYMORE SPECIALITY § INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., § § Defendant. § STATE OF LONE STAR

JURY QUESTION NO. 1

Do you find that the death of Stephen Rankin was proximately caused by intentional

infliction of emotion distress by Paymore Specialty Insurance Company, Inc.?

Answer “Yes” or “No”

Answer: _____________

NTC 2020 Regional

CERTIFICATE

We the jury, have answered the above and foregoing questions as herein indicated, and herewith return same into Court as our verdict.

_____________________________ Presiding Juror

To be signed by those rendering the verdict if not unanimous.

NTC 2020 Regional

JEANINE RANKIN, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE 725th ......Plaintiff Jeanine Rankin and her late husband...

Documents

Transcript of JEANINE RANKIN, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE 725th ......Plaintiff Jeanine Rankin and her late husband...