Harding Brooks, Peplinski Sued Over Alleged Coverage Failure
Two related civil lawsuits filed in Harris County, Texas, on August 28, 2026, have placed Harding Brooks Insurance Agency, its executive Mike Peplinski, and Houston Specialty Insurance Company at the center of a dispute over insurance coverage purchased for a collateral recovery and forwarding operation.
The plaintiff in both actions is Ozzy Holdings LLC, which is pursuing the claims as assignee of Secure Collateral Management, Inc. (SCM). One lawsuit, Cause No. 2026-62368, names Harding Brooks Associates LLC, doing business as Harding Brooks Insurance Agency, and Peplinski individually. A companion action, Cause No. 2026-62551, names Houston Specialty Insurance Company and Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc. The two lawsuits arise from an insurance policy issued for SCM covering the period May 12, 2023, through May 12, 2024.
The dispute traces back to a June 29, 2023, repossession incident in Pasadena, Texas. According to the underlying court filings, Wells Fargo used SCM as a national forwarding company for repossessions, and SCM engaged a collateral recovery agency to perform the recovery work involved in the incident. A woman, Latrisa Hollie, allegedly sustained serious injuries during the repossession. The resulting personal injury lawsuit asserted various claims against the recovery operator and other parties, eventually adding SCM as a defendant. The allegations concerning how the incident occurred and who bears responsibility remain contested.
At the center of the current lawsuits is a commercial general liability policy issued by Houston Specialty for SCM’s business operations. The plaintiff alleges that SCM specifically sought protection against risks associated with its forwarding and recovery operations, including wrongful repossession, conversion, trespass, breach of the peace, and claims arising from subcontracted recovery agents. According to the petition against Harding Brooks and Peplinski, SCM communicated those coverage needs and relied on the broker’s expertise and representations when the policy was procured. The lawsuit alleges that the policy ultimately issued did not provide the requested wrongful repossession and breach-of-the-peace protection, either because the coverage was omitted or because exclusions effectively eliminated it.
The companion lawsuit against Houston Specialty and Skyward concerns the carrier’s subsequent refusal to defend SCM in the underlying injury litigation. The petition alleges that SCM tendered the lawsuit and requested defense and indemnity, but Houston Specialty denied coverage in a letter dated August 29, 2024. The insurer reportedly relied on policy language that included a Total Auto Exclusion and a Punitive Damages Exclusion. Ozzy’s petition disputes that position, arguing that the underlying lawsuit includes independent claims involving negligent undertaking, negligent selection and supervision of contractors, and joint enterprise—not simply claims arising from the use of an automobile. The plaintiff is asking the court to determine whether the insurer owes a duty to defend and indemnify SCM and whether the denial violated the insurance contract or applicable Texas insurance laws.
The lawsuit against Harding Brooks takes a separate but related approach. It alleges that the agency and Peplinski failed to procure coverage consistent with SCM’s specific instructions, failed to explain the limitations of the policy that was issued, and failed to recommend available policy forms, endorsements, or additional coverage that could have addressed the requested risks. The petition also alleges that representations were made about the scope of the coverage obtained. These allegations have not been established by a court.
Peplinski’s own declaration, submitted in support of the defendants’ response, confirms that he personally communicated with SCM’s chief operating officer while soliciting the company’s insurance business. Identifying himself as a vice president and authorized representative of Harding Brooks Associates, Peplinski describes his responsibilities as including soliciting new and renewal business, maintaining client files, communicating with customers, and preparing and submitting claim notices to insurance carriers. His declaration establishes his direct involvement in the account, but does not concede the alleged failure to procure adequate coverage or any other wrongdoing.
Harding Brooks and Peplinski have begun contesting the broker-related lawsuit. On October 30, they filed an original answer generally denying the plaintiff’s allegations and a motion asking that the case be transferred from Harris County to Dallas County. Their motion argues that the insured was located in Dallas and that the insurance solicitation, purchase, and delivery took place there. The filing also asserts various affirmative defenses. No ruling on that venue motion appears in the docket materials reviewed for this report.
There has also been a new development in the separate underlying Hollie litigation. On November 10, 2026, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Secure Collateral Management. That proceeding concerned a trial-court finding that SCM had intentionally failed to preserve dash-camera footage from the repossession truck. The appellate court concluded that the record did not establish SCM had sufficient notice of the incident and the likelihood of a claim before the footage was automatically deleted. It directed the trial court to vacate the spoliation finding against SCM and restore six affirmative defenses that had been struck. The opinion explains that a one-minute exterior-camera clip had been preserved, while unretrieved dash-camera footage was automatically deleted from cloud storage after 30 days. This ruling concerns SCM’s obligations in the underlying personal-injury case; it does not decide the merits of Hollie’s claims or the separate insurance disputes involving Harding Brooks and Houston Specialty.
One discrepancy in the insurance records also remains unexplained. The ACORD claim notice attached to Peplinski’s declaration lists March 16, 2024, as the date of loss. The underlying Hollie lawsuit and the appellate opinion identify June 29, 2023, as the date of the repossession incident. The documents reviewed do not explain why those dates differ. The filings also do not disclose the premium SCM paid for the one-year policy.
Both insurance petitions describe monetary relief exceeding $1 million, although the actual damages remain to be established through the litigation. The amounts sought in the two related actions should not be interpreted as separate, cumulative awards for the same underlying loss. No court has determined that Harding Brooks, Peplinski, Houston Specialty, or Skyward acted improperly, and the defendants have not been found liable in these cases.
These lawsuits are still developing, and the distinction between insurance procurement and insurance coverage remains central. The broker-related action asks whether the coverage obtained matched what the customer requested and was led to expect. The carrier-related action asks whether the insurer properly applied the policy when it declined to defend the insured. Those are separate questions, and both will depend on the actual policy language, the communications surrounding its placement, and the evidence developed in court.
For recovery agencies, the dispute is worth watching. Insurance policies are purchased to protect against the risks inherent in the business. Understanding what a policy does—and just as importantly, what it excludes—can become critical when a repossession-related claim turns into litigation. Repo Buzz will continue following the court records as these cases progress.
