The insured’s attorney was sanctioned for pursuing claims that were factually and legally unfounded. Wright v ASI Lloyds, No. 3?22-cv-357, Order (S.D. Texas Aug. 5, 2025).

    ASI moved for sections against the insured’s counsel, Eric B. Dick of the Eric Dick Law Firm, PLLC, requiring payment of fees, costs and expenses reasonably incurred in defending the insured’s action. The evidence revealed that the complaint was founded upon falsities. Dick either knew or should have know when filing the complaint the following:

  • The complaint alleged vandalism damaged the insured’s property, but the insured did not believe vandalism caused the damage.
  • The complaint alleged the property was the insured’s primary residence, but she had lived elsewhere since 2000 and the property had been vacant for two years at the time she discovered the damage.
  • The complaint alleged the property was well-maintained prior to the loss, but the city cited the property as a nuisance, unsanitary, and unfit for human habitation a year before the alleged date of loss.
  • The complaint alleged the insured complied with ASI’s loss investigation, but neither the insured nor her counsel appeared at the scheduled inspection time to let ASI’s adjuster into the property.
  • The complaint alleged ASI refused to consider the insured’s testimony and evidence supporting her claim based on vandalism, but neither the insured nor Dick provided evidence or testimony as to the alleged cause.

    Further, Dick did not consult or review the complaint with the insured before filing suit.

        These facts – which Dick knew or should have discovered by simply speaking with his client – would have precluded the insured’s legal claims as a matter of law. The policy excluded coverage for vandalism when the property was vacant for more than 30 days; the property here was vacant for six months prior to the incident and remained so for two more years.

    The court found that Dick filed the complaint for “improper purpose” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (b). The fabricated allegations, combined with the hurdles Dick forced ASI to endure simply to litigate the case, required a finding that Dick sought only to “harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (b) (1). Therefore, Dick violated Rule 11. 

    The court ordered Dick to pay the fees, costs and expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred by ASI in defense of the suit.