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

RICHARD v. CUDD PUMPING SERVICES, INC., 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: 
6:2015-cv-00197 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Gary L. Richard
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Oklahoma
Date Filed: 
May 22 2015

ANSWER

For their Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint (See Doc. # 3-1), Defendant,Cudd
Pumping Services, Inc. (“Cudd”) and Defendant Kevin Gabriel Hutchings
(“Hutchings”)(collectively “Defendants”) state as follows:
1.    Based on reason, information and belief, Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s
Petition/Complaint is admitted.
2.    Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint is    admitted.
3.    Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint is    admitted.
4.    Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint is    denied.
5.    The allegation contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint
concerns only a conclusion of law as to which no answer is required of
Defendants. To the extent that Defendants are otherwise required to respond
to the allegation contained in Paragraph 5, the allegation is admitted only to the
extent that venue is proper under 12 O.S. § 141 regarding Defendant
Hutchings. Defendants posit that venue is also proper in this Court based on
diversity jurisdiction, as Pittsburg County sits in this judicial district. To the
extent any other allegation is inferred in Paragraph 5, the same is hereby
denied.
6.    Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny
the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint; thus,
the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded.
7.    Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint is admitted. However, Plaintiff
also failed to yield the right-of-way, resulting in the collision.
8.    Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Petition is admitted.
9.    Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny
the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint; thus,
the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded.
10.    Regarding Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint, the allegations
contained therein call for a legal conclusion to be determined by a jury. In
addition, Plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way which resulted in subject
collision.
2
11.    Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint is denied.
12.    Defendants deny all requests for relief, including but not limited to, the
allegations made in the unnumbered ad damnum paragraph in Plaintiff’s
Petition/Complaint.
13.    Except as otherwise expressly admitted above, Defendants deny each and
every allegation or averment contained in Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1.    Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted against Defendants.
2.    Defendant Ace American Insurance Company is not a proper party to this
lawsuit.
3.    Assuming Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the allegations
contained in Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his
damages such that his recovery should be limited or barred.
4.    Defendants hereby raise any affirmative defense available to Defendants as
enumerated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and/or 12 O.S. § 2008.
5.    Defendants reserve the right to amend their Answer upon discovery of
additional information.
6.    Defendants were not negligent.
7.    Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff under any theory of recovery in law or
equity.
9.    Plaintiff’s damages and injuries, if any, were the sole result of Plaintiff’s own
negligence. But, if it be determined that Defendants were also negligent,
Plaintiff’s negligence was to such a degree as to bar any recovery to Plaintiff.
In addition, under no circumstances can Defendants be held liable for more
than the percentage of negligence that may be attributed by a jury to
Defendants’ conduct.
10.    Assuming Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the allegations
contained in Plaintiff’s Petition/Complaint, Plaintiff’s alleged damages are
inflated.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendants Cudd and Hutchings respectfully
request that Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Petition/Complaint and let it be dismissed
along with Defendant Cudd’s and Defendant Hutchings’ costs and a reasonable attorney’s
fee. Accordingly, Defendants Cudd and Hutchings also respectfully request such other relief
this Court deems just, equitable and proper.
 

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.