Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

DULING et al v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC et al

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
1:13-cv-01570 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Hugh Bruce Duling, IV
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Northern District of Georgia
Date Filed: 
May 8 2013

"COUNT I
Wrongful Death Claim Against Defendant Domino’s

51. The allegations contained in the above-numbered paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

52. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent and wrongful acts and omissions of Defendant Domino’s, as set forth above, Hugh Bruce Duling, III suffered a premature and untimely death.

53. Plaintiffs Hugh Bruce Duling, IV and Lacie Duling, by and through her mother and natural guardian, Karen Duling, assert claims against Defendant Domino’s for the wrongful death of Hugh Bruce Duling, III.

54. Plaintiffs Hugh Bruce Duling, IV and Lacie Duling, by and through her mother and natural guardian, Karen Duling, are entitled to recover damages from Defendant Domino’s for the full value of the life of Hugh Bruce Duling, III, in an amount determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.

COUNT II
Estate Claims Against Defendant Domino’s

55. The allegations contained in the above-numbered paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

56. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent and wrongful acts and omissions of Defendant Domino’s, as set forth above, Hugh Bruce Duling, III suffered catastrophic physical injuries, endured physical and mental pain and suffering and died.

57. The Estate of Hugh Bruce Duling, III, by and through its duly appointed Administrator, Plaintiff William Marshall Duling, is entitled to recover damages from Defendant Domino’s for the physical injuries and the conscious pain and suffering endured by Hugh Bruce Duling, III prior to his death, in an amount determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.

58. The Estate of Hugh Bruce Duling, III, by and through its duly appointed Administrator, Plaintiff William Marshall Duling, is entitled to recover damages from Defendant Domino’s for funeral, burial and related expenses incurred as a result of the injuries to and death of Hugh Bruce Duling, III, in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT III
Plaintiffs’ Direct Action Against Defendant Ace Insurance

59. The allegations contained in the above-numbered paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

60. Hugh Bruce Duling, III was, at all times relevant, a member of the public who was injured by the negligence of a motor carrier, Defendant Domino’s, its agents and employees.

61. The insurance contract issued by Defendant Ace Insurance to Defendant Domino’s was provided for the protection of members of the public, including Hugh Bruce Duling, III.

62. Hugh Bruce Duling, III and Plaintiffs sustained actionable injuries and are entitled to pursue this direct action against Defendant Ace Insurance under Georgia law, including pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 40-1-112(c).

63. Defendant Ace Insurance is liable to Plaintiffs under the insurance contract for all damages that were caused by the negligence of Defendant Domino’s, its agents and employees, up to the amount of that insurance contract.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
(a) That summons issue requiring Defendants to appear as provided by law to answer this Complaint;
(b) That Defendants be timely served with process;
(c) That Plaintiffs have a trial by jury on all issues and claims;
(d) That each Plaintiff recover damages and other expenses as permitted under Georgia law in an amount exceeding $75,000 from each of the Defendants;
(e) That all costs be cast against Defendants; and"

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.