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

WILLIAMS et al v. MACK 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: 
2:13-cv-06414 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Rose Williams
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Louisiana
Date Filed: 
Nov 14 2013

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Defendants, Comcast of Louisiana/Mississippi/Texas, LLC (“Comcast”) and Ace American Insurance Company (“Ace”), and submit this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages and to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages as follows.
Answer to Petition for Damages
I.
The allegations of Paragraph I of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
II.
To the extent the allegations of Paragraph II of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages do not pertain to Comcast or Ace, those allegations are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph II of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages constitute legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph II of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages pertain to Comcast, may be deemed to apply to Ace, or may require a response despite constituting legal conclusions, those allegations are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
III.
The allegations contained in Paragraph III of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages are admitted only to the extent that Comcast of Louisiana/Mississippi/Texas, LLC is a foreign corporation authorized to do and doing business in the State of Louisiana. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph III of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages constitute legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, those allegations are denied. The remaining allegations of Paragraph III of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
IV.
The allegations contained in Paragraph IV of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages do not concern the responding Defendants and, further, the Defendant against whom these allegations are directed has been dismissed from this action. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, the allegations contained in Paragraph IV of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
V.
The allegations contained in Paragraph V of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages do not pertain to the responding Defendants and, further, the Defendant against whom these allegations are directed has been dismissed from this action. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, the allegations contained in Paragraph V of Plaintiffs’

original Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
VI.
The allegations contained in Paragraph VI of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages do not pertain to the responding Defendants and, further, the Defendant against whom these allegations are directed has been dismissed from this action. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, the allegations contained in Paragraph VI of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
VII.
The allegations contained in Paragraph VII of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages do not pertain to the responding Defendants. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, the allegations contained in Paragraph VII of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
VIII.
The allegations contained in Paragraph VIII, including subparts a – e, of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages do not pertain to the responding Defendants. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, the allegations contained in Paragraph VIII, including subparts a – e, of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
IX.
The allegations contained in Paragraph IX of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.

X.
The allegations contained in Paragraph X of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
XI.
The allegations contained in Paragraph XI of Plaintiffs’ original Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
Response to Prayer for Relief
Plaintiffs’ unnumbered Prayer for Relief does not require a response. To the extent that a response may be required, Defendants deny the allegations and assertions contained in Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief.
Answer to Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages
1.
Ace admits that is a foreign insurer licensed to do and doing business in the State of Louisiana. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages constitute legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, those allegations and conclusions are denied. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
Response to Prayer for Relief
Plaintiffs’ unnumbered Prayer for Relief does not require a response. To the extent that a response may be required, Defendants deny the allegations and assertions contained in Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief.

Affirmative Defenses to Claims Contained in Plaintiffs’ Original and Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages
AND NOW, further answering, Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses:
1.
Plaintiffs’ Petition, as supplemented and amended, fails to state a claim against these Defendants upon which relief can be granted.
2.
Defendants are in no way negligent or at fault.
3.
No act of these Defendants was a proximate, contributing, or substantial cause of any damage alleged by Plaintiffs and Defendants owed no duties to Plaintiffs.
4.
Should any fault be found on the part of these Defendants, which is denied, Defendants allege that the accident was caused by the sole or comparative fault of others for whom these Defendants are not responsible, and that the fault of others serves to reduce or bar Plaintiffs’ recovery herein against these Defendants.
5.
In the event that these Defendants are found in any way negligent, which is specifically denied, Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to reduction in direct proportion to the comparative fault of Plaintiffs, including the following, non-exclusive particulars:
(a) Travelling at an excessive speed;
(b) Failure to keep a proper look-out;
(c) Failure to maintain control of the subject vehicle;
(d) Improper lane usage; and/or

(e) Any and all other acts of negligence or fault, the nature of which shall be proven at the trial of this matter.
6.
Defendants plead any and all other defenses available under Louisiana law and reserve the right to supplement and amend these defenses as discovery commences and further information becomes known to Defendants.
Jury Demand
Defendants hereby invoke their right to trial by jury.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Comcast of Louisiana/Mississippi/Texas, LLC and Ace American Insurance Company, respectfully pray that, after due proceedings are had, that there be judgment herein in favor of Defendants, dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Comcast and Ace at Plaintiffs’ cost, and further prays for all general and equitable relief to which Comcast and Ace may be entitled.

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.