Nationwide Mutual Ins Co - CEO Steve Rasmussen NATIONWIDE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: James Bachmann, Timothy Corcoran, Yvonne Curl, Kenneth Davis, Stephen Hirsch, Daniel Kelley, Diane Koken, Lydia Marshall, Terry McClure, Barry Nalebuff, Brent Porteus, Suku Radia, Steven Rasmussen, Steve Rasmussen, Stephen Rasmussen, Michael Toelle, Jeffrey Zellers, Sue Warren, Sparky Weilnau Columbus, Ohio

Frank C. Fleming

(((REDACTED)))

Dallas, TX 75205

July 13, 2016

VIA CMRRR NO: 7015 0640 0001 8359 8922

Mr. Stephen S. Rasmussen, CEO and Director

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

1 Nationwide Plaza

Columbus, OH  43215

Company Phone:  (877) 669-6877

Direct Phone:             (614) 249-7111

E-mail:  Stephen.Rasmussen at allied insurance dot come

RE: Commerce Street Partners and Jackson Fulgham

Dear Mr. Rasmussen:

This letter is to point out to Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (and its affiliate Allied Insurance Company), along with their Directors and Officers the perpetuation of a grave injustice against my client for the benefit of Nationwide/Allied (hereinafter called “Nationwide”) by and through its outside attorneys Melanie K. Okon, Susan Hannagan, et al, of the Taber Estes Thorne & Carr, PLLC law firm of Dallas, and certain of Nationwide’s employees induced into following the scam that caused the grave misconduct.

In 2009, Commerce Street Partners (“CSP”) and Jackson Fulgham (collectively the “Insured”) were the victims of a severe hail storm in Dallas, TX. The hail storm caused considerable damage throughout the Deep Ellum neighborhood (many of whom were Nationwide policyholders and had to have their roofs replaced) and in particular to the CSP commercial building just outside the downtown corridor.

The hail storm was initially adjusted by a senior level 3 Nationwide adjuster and he determined the roof to be a total loss. In the adjuster’s estimate the loss required the entire roof to be replaced due to the significant number of hail stone hits, as shown in the adjuster’s photographs. Nationwide’s adjuster gave his estimate, but when the estimate was proven to be deficient, he finally gathered another estimate from a Nationwide expert, vendor roofer - contractor and eventually Nationwide agreed and did pay based upon the expert’s Xactimate Estimate in the amount of $654,034.56 for the claim.

Three years later, Nationwide got cross ways with the Insured, based upon other issues unrelated to the hail storm claim, and reversed its decision on the hail storm claim and sued the Insured for a return of the money paid to the Insured.

The matter became a jury trial at which the Insured was forced to represent themselves due to the unexpected withdrawal of his attorneys three weeks prior to trial, a circumstance for which the Judge would surprisingly not grant a continuance. Being highly outmanned and outnumbered by the bevy of attorney’s assisting Nationwide at trial, the verdict at trial unsurprisingly was in favor of Nationwide.

The purpose of this letter is to point out to you as the CEO and Director of Nationwide, the egregious conduct on the part of the Nationwide’s attorneys, Melanie K. Okon, and Susan Hannagan, et al, that was utilized at trial in order to obtain the Nationwide verdict.

Nationwide’s theory on how to win the case was to prove to the jury that the Insured had hired someone to climb upon the roof and hide evidence, in the 6 days, between the time of the loss (July 8^th, 2009 and the time the insurance company’s adjuster inspected the damage (on or about July 14^th, 2009). Nationwide’s theory was that the allegedly bad condition of the roof prior to the storm was covered up and hidden from the adjuster by a ‘paint coating.’ Nationwide had only issued the 3^rd year of this policy renewal in March of 2009 (4 months prior to the hail storm), and had a Nationwide roof inspector perform a pre-insurance inspection of the CSP roof before issuing the 2009 Policy.

In order to perfect their theory, the attorney for Nationwide needed to find a person that performed the ‘paint cover up prior to the adjuster’s initial visit and make him their star witness. Without such a witness, the Nationwide case would have likely sunk. However, the attorney for Nationwide was unable to provide such a witness. So instead, being the clever attorney she was, Ms. Okon did the next best thing, she invented one.

During pretrial, numerous depositions were taken by the parties. Among those deposed, was a former worker for the insured, a laborer/contractor, by the name of Scott Duane Fair, who was deposed on more than one occasion, but was consistent with his timeline in both. Mr. Fair was a former employee of the Insured that had become disgruntled due to having been fired for theft and dishonesty. (You can find out all about Scott Duane Fair by Googling his name). In Mr. Fair’s depositions, he testified very clearly that he had never met anyone from Commerce Street Partners or the Insured (or even been to the insured’s premises) until March of 2012 (remember the loss and the alleged deceitful behavior, the Nationwide lawyer argued to the Jury, allegedly occurred between July 8^th, 2009 and July 14^th, 2009 (3 years earlier).

The following excerpts are from the transcripts of the depositions and from the trial proceedings. They make it clear the knowledge of the Nationwide attorneys and the falsified closing argument that was made at trial:

1.  Nationwide Deposition of Scott Duane Fair taken by Ms. Melanie K. Okon taken on August 2^nd, 2012 in Commerce Street Partners vs. Nationwide/Allied.

2.  Hartford Deposition of Scott Duane Fair taken by Steven Badger on June 7th, 2012 in Rainbow Academy vs. Hartford (a copy of this deposition was provided to Nationwide’s attorneys).

3.  Opening statement to Jury by Susan Hannagan on August 19^th, 2013, in Nationwide/Allied vs. Commerce Street Partners and J. Fulgham.

4.  Closing statement to jury by Melanie K. Okon on or about August 21^st, 2013, in Nationwide/Allied vs. Commerce Street Partners and J. Fulgham.

{Evidence from the trial record of lies, unlawful misconduct by Nationwide and its attorneys}

Mr. Fair was never called to trial by Nationwide. He only testified by deposition. Not calling him made it impossible for the Insured, pro-se, to have the opportunity to cross examine him and make it clear to the jury when Mr. Fair was and was not present at the building. Despite the fact that Mr. Fair’s testimony was that he never met the Insured until March of 2012, the attorneys for Nationwide, in their opening and in their closing arguments to the jury, said that it was Scott Duane Fair (and Derrick, also hired on or about April of 2012), who had gone up on the roof during the crucial time at issue and covered up the evidence of the roof conditions with paint.

This closing argument was based upon pure fiction, facts not in evidence, and it was a gross miscarriage of justice perpetuated against the Insured resulting in a large verdict which the Insured is unable to pay. Nevertheless, Nationwide has exercised a partial collection of their judgment against the Insured’s commercial building in Dallas and has filed suit against the Insured in Arkansas where it is attempting to collect against a small farm owned by a trust set up for Mr. Fulgham’s children, and a place where at 74, his children have provided for him to retire.

For the record, the made up arguments by Ms. Okon also said that the Insured had known ever since roof reports were produced in 2001 (in other litigation, not against Fulgham) that the roof was in bad condition. However, the deed introduced into evidence clearly shows that the building was not even known to exist by Fulgham, nor purchased by Fulgham until the later part of June 2002.

Ms. Okon also tried to say that the Insured had not put on a roof after an earlier loss, but the Insured produced at trial nearly 100 color photographs of an installation of a heavy commercial roof, installed over a heavily and newly augmented structure, by a Dallas Commercial Roofing Contractor, where he had the roof installed in June of 2005, despite a very limited insurance claim payment from the former insurer.

So, after three substantial and egregious false representations in court, concocted and invented by Melanie K. Okon, Susan Hannagan, et al of the Taber Estes Thorne & Carr, PLLC law firm, along with certain of Nationwide’s employees induced to work in concert with them, based upon the lawyers’ fabrications, were not something the Insured could overcome.

My client has already filed a very detailed complaint with the Texas Bar Association regarding Ms. Okon’s lack of candor and untruthfulness before the court which is available for you to view. My client would prefer to resolve this matter with Nationwide on a more amicable basis as opposed to going to any regulatory agency or to the court of public opinion. It is the Insured’s hope that you will see the untoward nature and improper way the verdict was obtained and apply your own company’s Ethics Code and Business Conduct Rules and your own company moral values to this situation and right this tragic wrong.

In 2009, the Insured was the victim of a hail storm where Nationwide only partially paid the damages, lied about Nationwide’s knowledge that it was unduly, seriously left to be exposed to asbestos by Nationwide and their adjusters and then thereafter refused to pay the remainder of the damages that Nationwide’s own Supervisory Adjusters wrote was due for the loss. In 2012, he was the victim of another storm, this time a legal storm.

In 2009 Nationwide was by Mr. Fulgham’s side to help him. In 2016, he now is in need of Nationwide’s ethics, truthfulness and honesty again. He needs you by his side by being candid and principled like your “Nationwide Code of Ethics” suggests your company behaves. I hope you will see fit to right a wrong by investigating the file I have and that in the end you will choose to set aside the judgment, fire the attorneys who have lied about Nationwide in court (more than I have set forth here), collect from them for their wrongdoing in disparaging both you and the Insured, and treat the Insured fairly as any policyholder would expect to be treated.

Very truly yours,

Frank C. Fleming