Date: 12-25-2013

Case Style: Bret Burton v. Eva Christine Causey

Case Number: CJ-2011-6475

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Thomas A. Layon

Defendant's Attorney: Erik Houghton for Eva Christine Causey

David D. Wilson for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Description: Bret Burton sued Eva Christine Causey on the following theories for relief:

Issue # 1.
Issue: NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL) (NEGL)
Filed by: BURTON, BRET
Filed Date: 10/31/2011
Party Name: Disposition Information:

Defendant: CAUSEY, EVA CHRISTINE
Disposed: , 08/30/2013. Dismissed- Settled.

Defendant: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
Disposed: , 08/30/2013. Dismissed- Settled.

Defendant: CAUSEY, EVA CHRISTINE
Disposed: , 10/18/2013. Dismissed- Settled.

Defendant: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
Disposed: , 11/13/2013. Dismissed- Settled.

The specifics of the claims and defenses asserted are not available.


Defendant Eva Christine Causey appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff except for those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. Defendant admits that there was a collision of automobiles at the approximate Imc and location alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. Defendant is without sufficient information, knowledge, or belief to either admit Or deny the allegations of injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiffs Petition, and therefore slenies the same, and demands strict proof thereof.

ADDITIONAL RESPONSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4. The Defendant denies the nature and extent of Plaintiffs injures and damages, if any.

5. The injuries complained of in Plaintiffs Petition are the result health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this accident Defendant is not liable.

6. The injuries complained of in Plaintiffs petition are the result of health care problems which developed subsequent to the date of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by this Defendant and for which this Defendant is not liable.

7. Reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment.

8. Discovery in this case is just commencing, and Defendant reserves the right to amend her Answer to assert additional affirmative defenses as they may be ascertained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant prays that Plaintiffs Petition be dismissed and Plaintiff take nothing thereby; further Defendant prays for the costs of this action and for such relief as may be fair and equitable.

State Farm Mutual appeared and answered, as follows:

I.

State Farm admits the occurrence of an accident at the approximate date and place alleged by Plaintiff in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition. State Farm is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

II.

State Farm is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 2, 3,4 and 5 of Plaintiffs Petition, and demands strict proof thereof

III.

State Farm admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of Plaintiffs Petition.

IV.

State Farm is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 9, band II of Plaintiff’s Petition, and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

For further answer and defense, the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), alleges and states:

I.

This lawsuit is subject to the law of comparative negligence of the State of Oklahoma. Thus, the negligence of the Plaintiff, Brett Burton, if any, must be compared to the negligence, if any, of all other parties and non-parties hereto, and Plaintiffs recovery, if any, must be reduced accordingly.

II.

State Farm denies the nature and extent of thc injuries claimed by the Plaintiff, Brett Burton.

Ill.

State Farm states that some of Plaintiffs alleged medical treatment may not be reasonable or necessarily related to the incident of December21, 2010.

IV.

State Farm states that some of Plaintiffs alleged injuries may be the result of pre-existing mental or physical conditions, or subsequently developed mental or physical conditions not causally related to the incident of December 21, 2010.

V.

State Farm pleads all affirmativc dcfenses that may be available to it under Oklahoma law based upon factual evidence that exists at the time of trial.

VI

State Farm reserves its right to amend its Answer as discovery commences and continues.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: