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

STREET et al v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 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: 
2:14-cv-01694 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Tanya Street
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Louisiana
Date Filed: 
Jul 24 2014

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court as established under Title 28, Section 1332
of the United States Code.
The following named parties are complainants herein, to-wit:
1. TANYA STREET, a person of full age and majority and domiciled in St. Charles
Parish; and
2. DENNIS STREET, a person of full age and majority and domiciled in St. Charles
Parish.
The above named complainants respectfully represent as follows, to-wit:
I.
The following named parties are made defendants herein, to-wit:
(a) ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company
authorized to do and doing business in the State of Louisiana; and
(b) THE MARTIN-BROWER COMPANY, L.L.C., Delaware limited liability
company authorized to do and doing business in the State of Louisiana with its
principal place of business in Rosemont, Cook County, Illinois.
II.
The above named defendants are responsible and liable jointly, severally, solidarity and
vicariously to complainants because of the following:
III.
This action results from a two vehicle collision occurring in Gretna, Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana, on or about October 13, 2013.
TV.
Complainant, Tanya Street, was driving a 2013 Buick Regal and proceeding east bound
on U.S. Highway 90 in the right lane. At the same time, a 2013 Volvo #13 being driven by
Gregory Reed and owned by defendant, The Martin-Brower Company, L.L.C., was proceeding
east on U.S. Highway 90 in the middle lane.
V.
Gregory Reed attempted to make a right turn onto Lafayette Street from the middle lane
of U.S. Highway 90, resulting in the tow vehicle colliding.
VI.
Upon the impact and collision, Tanya Street was thrown about in the car.
VII.
As a result of the above accident, complainant, Tanya Street, suffered and continues to
suffer multiple personal, psychological and emotional injuries of a past, present, and continuing
nature.
VIII.
Complainant, Tanya Street, has undergone medical treatment since the accident and will
undergo further treatment. Complainant was and still is limited from her normal activities as a
result of the accident. The injuries cause her pain and discomfort in her employment.
IX.
The sole and proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by petitioner was the
individual, joint, solidary, concurrent and/or successive negligence of Gregory Reed, which
negligence includes but not limited to, to-wit:
(a) failure to maintain a proper look-out;
(b) failure to observe existing traffic conditions;
(c) failure to observe petitioner's vehicle in due time in order to avoid hitting
same;
(d) failure to observe due caution;
(e) driving recklessly;
(f) failure to maintain control of his vehicle;
(g) striking petitioner's vehicle;
(h) inattentiveness while driving;
(i) improper right turn;
(j) failure to be attentive;
(k) crossing dividing line of highway;
(1) failure to yield while turning right;
(m) improper crossing of lane dividing line;
(n) improper lane change;
(o) changing lane without first making sure could do so safely;
(p) failing to maintain a safe distance;
(q) other negligence which may be proven at trial of this matter;
IX A.
The defendant, The Martin-Brower Company, L.L.C., is guilty of the following additional
acts of negligence, gross negligence, and/or omissions which proximately caused or proximately
contributed to the accident of October 13, 2013 described herein above and the injuries sustained
by the plaintiff:
a) negligently and carelessly failed to properly select, train, and or supervise their
driver, Gregory Reed;
b) negligently and carelessly put or allowed to remain on the road an unqualified
and/or reckless driver;
c) negligently and carelessly failed to screen and test their driver periodically to
monitor and evaluate his safety orientation;
d) negligently and carelessly failed to develop, promulgate, adopt, and/or implement
safety policies, procedures and practices for their driver;
e) negligently and carelessly permitted, allowed, and/or failed to stop their driver
from operating motor vehicles in violation of 49 C.F.R. §395.3;
f) negligently and carelessly permitted, allowed, and/or failed to stop their driver,
Gregory Reed, from violating the rules of 49 C.F.R. §390.35 and 395.8 regarding
driver records and logs;
g) negligently and carelessly permitted and allowed their driver, Gregory Reed, to
operate motor vehicles when said driver was experiencing sleep deprivation
and/or cumulative fatigue;
h) negligently and carelessly failed to provide periodic systematic safety and/or
defensive driving training for their driver;
i) negligently and carelessly failed to provide remedial training of their driver,
Gregory Reed;
j) negligently entrusted their vehicle to Gregory Reed;
k) negligent risk management;
1) negligently allowing or permitting the driver to have passengers in the truck who
might distract the driver; and
m) any such other negligence or gross negligence and violations of rules, regulations,
and statutes as may be shown at the trial of this matter.
X.
Tanya Street itemizes the damages to which she is entitled as a result of the accident and
injury proximately caused by the above described negligence of The Martin-Brower Company,
L.L.C. as follows, to-wit:
(a) Past physical pain, suffering and discomfort
(b) Past mental anguish, aggravation, and annoyance
(c) Disability
(d) Future physical pain, suffering and discomfort
(e) Future mental anguish, aggravation and annoyance
(f) Past medical expenses
(g) Future medical expenses
(h) Past lost wages
(i) Future lost wages
(j) Property damage
(k) Loss of use of vehicle
(1) Sales tax
(m) Loss of enjoyment of life
(n) Loss of use/function of parts of body
(o) Bodily disability
(p) Impairment of psychological functioning
(q) Disability from working to earn an income
(r) Destruction of earning capacity
(s) Disability from engaging in recreation
XL
Complainant, Dennis Street, because of the injury and accident to his wife, suffered and
continues to suffer loss of her consortium, companionship, society and friendship in that she is
not the same person that she was before the accident. Prior to the accident they had a very good
and close relationship. After the accident they often got into fights, they do not have the same
marital relationship that they had prior to the accident, and she becomes easily aggravated and
annoyed causing dissent and discord in their family and marriage. The injury and accident
caused their marriage and their relationship to deteriorate and their intimate marital relationship
also changed. Further, he was distressed at the prospect of her not being able to work and worried
their income would decrease. Further, he has experienced mental anguish over her injury, and
the prospect of future loss of income, means and livelihood.
XII.
Complainant, Dennis Street, because of the injuries sustained by his wife, Tanya Street,
itemizes the damages to which he is entitled to-wit:
(a) Deprivation of the companionship, love, affection, consortium, and society of
his wife;
(b) Grief, mental anguish and distress over his wife's injuries;
(c) Grief, mental anguish and distress over his own injuries as a result of the
accident and injuries to his wife; and
(d) Loss of support.
XIII.
Complainants strictly reserve the right to amend and supplement this petition as necessary
concerning damages.
xrv.
Ace American Insurance Company had issued a policy of public liability insurance
insuring against the negligent operation of a motor vehicle on the date of accident in favor of The
Martin-Brower Company, L.L.C. and its employees, including Gregory Reed, under which Reed
is an omnibus insured. As the insurer of the defendant employer and employee driver, said
insurer is jointly, severally, solidarity and vicariously liable and responsible for the damages and
negligence set forth above.
XV.
At the time of the accident, Gregory Reed, was acting in the course and scope of his
employment with The Martin-Brower Company, L.L.C. As the employer of Gregory Reed, The
Martin-Brower Company, L.L.C. is jointly, severally, solidarity and vicariously liable and
responsible for the acts of negligence and damages
XVI.
Complainants further specifically plead the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in that the
accident and injuries and damages would not have occurred in absence of the negligence
of The Martin-Brower Company, L.L.C and Gregory Reed.
XVII.
Ace American Insurance Company and The Martin-Brower Company, L.L.C. are jointly,
severally, solidarity and vicariously liable and responsible to complainants for the negligence and
damages set forth above.
XVIII.
Complainants allege the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, the jurisdictional
amount for diversity jurisdiction

WHEREFORE, complainants pray that defendants be cited and served and that after due
proceedings are had there be judgment in favor of complainants, Tanya Street and Dennis Street,
and against the defendants, Ace American Insurance Company and The Martin-Brower
Company, L.L.C., jointly, severally, solidarity and vicariously for such sums as
are reasonable in the premises, together with legal interest thereon from date of judicial demand
until paid and for all costs of these proceedings.

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.