FREED LAW FIRM

3100 Jeanetta Street, No. 610

Houston, Texas 77063
Telephone: (713) 502-7255
Facsimile: (281) 677-4251

October 26, 2023

Via Fax: 855-820-6318

Attn: Kalynn Amburn
State Farm
P.O. Box 106171
Atlanta, GA 30348
**PLEASE FORWARD TO MS. JAIMES AND ALL DECISION MAKERS AT STATE FARM **

Re: Meah Garza

D/O/I: 06/26/2023
Claim No.: 53-51X5-57M
Your Insured: Yaritza Jaimes

STOWERS DEMAND

Dear Amburn:

This letter is written to you on behalf of Meah Garza. This letter shall constitute a
Stowers demand for the injuries Ms. Meah Garza suffered as a result of the negligence of your
insured, Yaritza Jaimes, on June 26, 2023. Ms. Garza's vehicle was in motion, traveling
eastbound at 7600 Katy Freeway I ball lane 7 in his vehicle 2016 Chevrolet Equinox.
Meanwhile, Ms Jaimes was traveling on the same road in his 2022 Jeep. Unfortunately, Ms.
Jaimes failed to control the speed of the vehicle and collided with Ms. Garza’s vehicle,
resulting in a vehicular accident. As a result of your insured’s negligence and negligence per
se, who failed to control speed, failed to observe and carefully maneuver his surroundings
causing his vehicle to collide with great force with Ms. Meah Garza's vehicle, causing severe
damage to both. As a result of your insured’s extreme negligence, our client suffered severe and
debilitating physical injuries. See attached Harris County Sheriff's Office Texas Peace Officer’s
Crash Report, TxDot Crash ID No.19624273.1/2023308925.

This demand is for $500,000.00, or your insured’s policy limits, whichever is less.

I hope you have advised your insured of their rights in this matter, including their ability
to recover damages from State Farm should they fail to settle this matter for a reasonable
amount. I hope you have advised them that they have the right to retain their own counsel, since
State Farm attorneys may not seek their interest, and may not advise them of his rights against
State Farm.
 Please remind your insured that Texas recognizes a cause of action on the part of the
insured against the insured’s liability carriers if the insured is damaged because of the carrier’s
negligence in refusing to settle the claims against its insured within policy limits. See
StowersFurniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co., 15 S.W.2d 544, 547 (Tex. Comm’n App.
1929, holding approved); American Physicians Ins. Exchange v. Garcia, 876 S.W.2d 842, 848
(Tex. 1994); Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Soriano, 881 S.W. 2d 312 (Tex. 1994). In Garcia, the
Texas Supreme Court set out a three-part test for determining whether the liability insurance
carrier has breached its duty to settle under Stowers: 1) the claim against the insured is within the
scope of coverage; 2) an unconditional demand is made within the policy limits in exchange for a
release of the insured: and 3) the terms of the demand are such that an ordinarily prudent insurer
would accept it, considering the likelihood and degree of the insured’s potential exposure to an
excess judgment. Garcia, 876 S.W. 2d at 849; Soriano, 881 S.W. 2d at 314.

Ms. Garza's demand is not only “reasonable,” it is also “unconditional:”

1. This demand is intended to place no conditions on the acceptance of the settlement that
are beyond Ms. Jaimes’ ability to satisfy;

2. In exchange for Ms. Jaimes’ tender of the amount demanded, Ms. Garza will provide a
full release or otherwise fully protect your insured, and any other person or entity deemed
necessary, from further liability exposure from Ms. Garza’s claim; and

3. Ms. Garza expressly agrees to satisfy all hospital and any other legally enforceable
subrogation liens with the amount demanded (i.e. the interests of any such subrogation
lien holders are expressly included within the amount demanded and will be satisfied
therefrom). Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Bleeker, 966 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1998).

The best result in this case, from your insured’s standpoint, is to settle this case with
insurance money and not their own money. In any subsequent Stowers case against the insurer
and any of the insurer’s affiliates or subsidiaries, Ms. Jaimes’ own evaluation of the case as
communicated by her to you is potential evidence of whether Ms. Garza’s demand is a
reasonable demand under the Stowers doctrine. As such, we respectfully urge Ms. Jaimes to
carefully evaluate this case and make a settlement recommendation to their insurer to protect
their interest if the case does not settle. If you believe, after reviewing this demand, that a
verdict and judgment in excess of policy limits is a distinct possibility, then the only
prudent course of action is to recommend that the insurer settle in order to protect them
from exposure to an excess judgment.

If the settlement demand is rejected, please provide in writing the specific detailed
reasons. This correspondence shall be presented to the jury, which will determine the Stowers
liability of the insurer and any of its affiliates and subsidiaries, should the carrier refuse to accept
this reasonable demand.

In order to satisfy the Stowers prerequisites, Ms. Garza makes the offer of settlement in
this letter. If there are any questions regarding this offer, we will be happy to answer whatever
questions you or your insured may have. If, for any reason, you or your insured do not believe

2
this demand to be one for an amount within the applicable policy limits under the Stowers
doctrine as currently defined under applicable Texas law, please advise why you believe that to
be the case. Otherwise, it is fair to presume that this is a proper demand within the insurance
policy limits.

As we wish to provide you and Ms. Jaimes with a “reasonable time” in which to evaluate
this unconditional demand, be advised that this demand automatically expires at 5:00 p.m. on
*******. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 680 S.W.2d 595, 608 (Tex. App. – Tyler 1984, writ ref’d
n.r.e); State Farm Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Maldonado, 935 S.W.2d 805 (Tex. App. – San Antonio
1996), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 963 S.W. 2d (Tex. 1998). Moreover, we request that you
send a copy of the letter via certified mail, return receipt requested, to each of the adjusters
responsible for this case, and to Ms. Jaimes.

In determining if a failure to settle within the policy limits is reasonable, two primary
factors are considered: 1) whether the liability facts demonstrate that Ms. Garza is likely to
succeed on the merits of the case; and 2) whether the damages demonstrate that the amount of a
jury’s verdict is likely to exceed the policy coverage. In this case, both factors overwhelmingly
suggest that the insurer should tender $500,000.00, or policy limits, whichever is less, in order
to meet this Stowers Demand and settle this case.

As mentioned above, this letter is written to you on behalf of Ms. Garza. This letter
provides you and your insured the reasonable opportunity to settle claims within policy limits
and avoid exposing your clients to an excess judgment.

I. THE LIABILITY FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT MS. GARZA IS VERY

LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF THIS CASE

On June 26, 2023, a vehicular accident occurred in Harris County involving Ms.
Garza, who was traveling eastbound at 7600 Katy Freeway I ball lane 7 in his vehicle 2016
Chevrolet Equinox. Meanwhile, Ms Jaimes was traveling on the same road in his 2022 Jeep.
Unfortunately, Ms. Jaimes failed to control the speed of the vehicle and collided with Ms.
Garza’s vehicle, resulting in severe and debilitating injuries for Ms. Garza. The collision
caused damage to both the front bumper of Ms. Jaimes’ insured vehicle and the rear bumper of
Ms. Garza’s vehicle.

Following the collision, the Harris County Sheriff's Office dispatched Officer J. Patino to
investigate. After assessing the scene and conducting witness interviews, Officer Patino provided
a narrative and field diagram presented below:

3
Officer Patino determined Ms. Jaimes caused the collision by failure to control the speed
and attributed the only contributing factor to her.

NEGLIGENCE

Ms. Garza would show that, on the occasion in question, Ms. Jaimes, owed a duty to
conduct herself in a manner consistent with the traffic laws of the State of Texas and to act as a
reasonably prudent person and/or entity would act. Ms. Jaimes acted in a manner that was
negligent per se by engaging in wrongful conduct including, but not limited to:

a. Failing to keep such a proper lookout as a person exercising ordinary prudence would
have kept under the same or similar circumstances;

b. Failing to take timely or proper evasive action to avoid the collision in question;

c. Failing to turn his motor vehicle to the right or left in an effort to avoid the collision
complained of;

d. Failing to safely change lanes;

e. Failing to yield to the right of way;

4
 f. Failing to maintain driver attention;

g. Failing to control the subject vehicle so that a collision would not occur, and

h. Driving in the shoulder and/or bike lane.

As such, your insured violated the following provisions of the Texas Transportation Code
by which all motor vehicle operators are required to abide.

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE

TRANSP § 545.401 RECKLESS DRIVING provides that, “A person commits an offense if the
person drives a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”

TRANSP § 545.352 PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS provides that, “A speed in excess of the
limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie
evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.”

It is clear from the facts of this case that your insured was not driving safely, defensively,
or prudently at the time of this collision. As a result of your insured blatant disregard for the
safety of those around her, your insured liability is not at issue. The impact caused significant
damage to Ms. Garza's vehicle, and serious bodily injury to Ms. Garza.

II. THE EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES DEMONSTRATES THAT A JURY’S

VERDICT WILL EXCEED THE DEMAND IN THIS CASE

On June 26, 2023, due to excruciating pain symptoms, Ms. Garza presented herself to a
physician at Memorial Heights Emergency Center and underwent an injury evaluation with Dr.
Denys Rybka. At that time, Ms. Garza reported constant neck, head, lower back, and right knee
pain that was described as sharp and intermittent. She reports that the pain radiates down in the
right lower extremity intermittently and decreases her ability to perform her normal work
activities. Upon physical exam, Dr. Rybka gave her assessment that Ms. Garza had muscle
spasms in the neck, tenderness of the lower cervical spine, in her back, she had tenderness in the
right lower & and left lower urban area, and muscle spasms and tenderness in the proximal tibia.
She was prescribed ibuprofen 600 mg and cyclobenzaprine 5 mg. Ms. Garza was scheduled to
start physical therapy and will follow up in two weeks with MRI results.

5
 On June 27, 2023, Ms. Garza was evaluated by new telehealth management for the
injuries she sustained on June 26, 2023. Upon evaluation Dr. Cummings instructed her to pick up
the medications prescribed by E.R. Upon final reevaluation of injuries on September 06, 2023,
Dr. Cummings prescribed her cyclobenzaprine 10mg for her muscle spasms, also the patient has
been instructed to follow up with a chiropractor and continue their treatment plan as instructed.

6
 On August 02, 2023, Ms. Garza presented herself to Advantis MRI & Diagnostic
Imaging for her thoracic spine and lumber-spine MRI. In her T-spine MRI, She was found to
have a broad-based paracentral disc herniation at T7-8, resulting in compression upon the ventral
CSF space and Narrowing of left neural foramen and broad-based central disc herniation at
T9-10, resulting in compression upon the ventral CSF space and Narrowing of left neural
foramen. In her L- spine she has broad-based central disc herniation is present at L3-4 and L4-
5, resulting in compression and impingement of the ventral thecal sac and narrowing of the left
neural foramen. These types of herniations were caused by the negligence of your insured.

III. NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES- PAIN & SUFFERING

7
 Ms. Garza, a 19-year-old girl, has suffered significant pain and trauma due to the
negligence of your insured party. This unfortunate incident has caused her to endure these
hardships at a younger age. Mr. Garza's life has been dramatically altered by a severe
spinal injury resulting from the vehicular accident. The injury has not only caused
significant physical damage but has also impacted her mental well-being. Her once
enjoyable activities and pleasures have been taken away, leaving her life on hold. Despite
the pain and suffering, Ms. Garza puts on a brave front for her family, not wanting to
burden them, even though they have a low income standard. She continues to work hard to
provide for her family and keep their home, but she faces challenges in performing her
normal work activities due to the injuries reported during her medical consultation. The
accident has deprived Ms. Garza of the luxuries she once had, and she strives to cope with
the lasting effects on her life.

What is it worth to destroy a life? What should it cost?

Your attempts to avoid blame, or to otherwise blame Ms. Garza for her injuries, only
serve to add to her pain, suffering, and mental anguish. Telling Ms. Garza that the pain and
suffering she has experienced since the crash is actually her own fault is cruel and adds a
tremendous amount of pain and suffering to an already injured woman. You have alternated
between blaming Ms. Garza's back and neck injury on her age, some bogus preexisting
condition, or her job. First, herniations the size of Ms. Garza's is not normal. Second, Ms.
Garza's disk abnormalities must be attributed to the crash since her spinal injuries are
causing neural compression, resulting in symptoms of neuropathy, pain, and discomfort in
her normal activity. Neural compression caused by spinal injuries is a symptom or
precursor to nerve damage
.

IV. ECONOMIC DAMAGES

A. PAST ECONOMIC DAMAGES

To date, Ms. Garza has accumulated $17,883.00 in past medical expenses, which
continue to accrue as Ms. Garza's treats. These expenses are listed by provider below:

MEAH GAMEZ PAST MEDICALS:

Memorial Height MVA- Physics: $ 1600.00

Advantis MRI: $ 7800
Insight Medical Solution: $ 800
Memorial Height MVA-Facility: $ 16,283.00
TOTAL: $26,483.65 (subject to change)

8
 B. FUTURE ECONOMIC DAMAGES

(PENDING INFORMATION)

TOTAL: $50,000.00 (subject to change)

C. TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES

Past: $26,483.65
Future:______$50,000.00_____________________________
Total: $76,483.65

IV. CONCLUSION

Given Meah Garza's injuries, a fair and impartial jury in Harris County, following the
Court’s instructions on the measure of damages under Texas law and after hearing testimony on
the damage, impact, and consequences the negligence of your insured caused to the life of this
women, will render a verdict for Ms. Garza’s in an amount that would greatly exceed the amount
demanded in this matter. We look forward to your acceptance of this demand.

Sincerely,

FREED LAW FIRM, PLLC

/s/ Robert Freed

Robert Freed, Attorney at Law