Date: 08-03-2012

Case Style: Dale Larimore v. Marquis Furniture d/b/a Hoffman's Furniture

Case Number: CJ-2011-1898

Judge: Tom A. Lucas

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: David Bernstein, Bernstein & Walkey, Norman, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Derrick T. DeWitt, Nelson Roselius Terry O'Hara & Morton, Oklahoma City for Hoffman's Furniture

Thomas G. Ferguson, Jr., Walker, Ferguson & Ferguson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Description: 1. On June 28, 2010, there was a collision in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, involving vehicles driven by Defendant Stanley McDonald and Plaintiff.

2. At time of collision, Defendant Stanley McDonald was driving a box truck which stated Hoffman’s Furniture on the side of the truck.

3. At time of collision, Defendant Stanley McDonald was on a joint mission for Defendant Marquis Furniture, Inc d/b/a Hoffman’s Furniture.

4. Said collision was caused by Defendant Stanley McDonald’s negligence in following too closely and inattentive driving, causing Plaintiff to suffer damages in an amount not yet detenffined, but believed to be in excess of $75,000.00.

5. Defendants violated 47 0.5. §11-310 and 47 0.5. § 11-901(a), which is negligence per se, causing Plaintiff to suffer damages as set forth above.

6. In the event Defendants were uninsured or underinsured, Defendant State Fann Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. is also liable for Plaintiff’s damages as set forth above.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MAROUIS FURNITURE, INC. D/B/A HOFFMAN’S FURNITURE

Defendant Marquis Furniture, Inc., cl/b/a Hoffman’s Furniture (hereinafter “Marquis�), for its Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition, hereby generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained herein unless otherwise stated. For further answer and defense, Marquis states as follows:

1. Marquis admits a collision occurred on or about June 28, 2010 in Cleveland County, Oklahoma involving vehicles driven by Stanley McDonald as set forth in Plaintiff’s Petition. The remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Petition are generally and specifically denied and strict proof demanded thereof.

2. Marquis generally and specifically denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition and strict proof is demanded thereof.

3. Marquis generally and specifically denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition and strict proof is demanded thereof.

4. Marquis generally and specifically denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition and strict proof is demanded thereof.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that he be granted judgment against the Defendants in an amount not yet determined, but believed to be in excess of $75,000, interest, and costs.

5. Marquis generally and specifically denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition and strict proof is demanded thereof.

6. As no allegations are set forth against Marquis in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition, no response is required. To the extent any such allegations are implied, they are denied and strict proof is demanded thereof. For further answer and defense, Marquis states as follows:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Petition fails to state a claim against Marquis upon which relief may be granted and Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recover herein.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff was negligent, and such negligence on the part of Plaintiff caused or contributed to the accident and Plaintiff’s damages, if any; such negligence on the part of Plaintiff comparatively was greater than the negligence of Marquis and Plaintiff is not entitled to recover herein.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The accident was proximately caused by the negligence of a third party over whom Marquis had no control and for whose acts the Marquis is not responsible.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The accident was an unavoidable accident, casualty and misfortune which occurred without negligence on the part of Marquis.

As discovery has not yet begun, Marquis reserves the right to either add or withdraw affirmative defenses as discovery warrants.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Marquis Furniture, Inc., dlb/a Hoffman’s Furniture, prays that Plaintiff take nothing against it by way of the allegations contained in the Petition, and further prays that the Court enter judgment in Marquis’ favor, together with costs and such other further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

DEFENDANT STATE FARM’S ANSWER

COMES NOW the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and for Answer to the Petition of Plaintiff herein, denies each and every material allegation therein contained save and except those specifically admitted herein.

For further answer this Defendant states and alleges as follows:

1. It is admitted that an accident occurred on or about June 28, 2010 in Cleveland County, Oklahoma involving vehicles driven by Dale Larimore and Stanley McDonald.

2. This Defendant is without information or knowledge concerning the “status� of Mr. McDonald vis-a-vis Defendant Marquis Furniture, Inc. dib/a Hoffman’s Furniture and therefore does not respond to those allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. It is admitted that at the time of the accident in question Dale Larimore had a policy or policies of insurance issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company which provided uninsuredlunderinsured motorist coverage.

4. It is specifically denied that Stanley McDonald was an uninsured or underinsured motorist.

5. Upon information and belief Dale Larimore suffered from conditions which pre-dated the accident in question which conditions were neither caused nor aggravated by the accident in question.

6. Discovery is only recently commenced in this matter and this Defendant reserves the right to assert such additional defenses and affirmative defenses as may become apparent following the completion of such discovery.

WHEREFORE having fully answered, Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, prays judgment in its favor and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Outcome: Plaintiff dismisses without prejudice his claim against ONLY Marquis Furniture, Inc. dfb/a Hoffman’s Furniture. All remaining claims shall proceed forward.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: