Date: 10-13-2012
Case Style: Maria L. Easter v. Luke Russell Barger
Case Number: CJ-2012-648
Judge:
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Richard "Dick" Gann
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Maria L. Easter sued Luke Russell Barger and the Hartford Property & Casualty Insurance Company on auto negligence and underinsured motorist insurance liability theories claiming:
1. The Plaintiff at all times material has been a resident and citizen of Tulsa County, times material has been a resident and citizen of Oklahoma.
2. The Defendant Barger at all times material has been a resident and citizen of Creek County, Oklahoma.
3. On November 24, 2010, the Plaintiff, operating her motor vehicle was driving eastbound on West 71st Street approaching Tulsa Hills Drive. This location is within Tulsa County.
4. At that time, the Defendant Barger, operating his motor vehicle also traveled eastbound on West 71st Street and as he approached the intersection of West 71 Street and Tulsa Hills Drive negligently permitted the front of his motor vehicle to collide with the rear of the motor vehicle then and there being driven by Plaintiff.
5. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and want of care of the Defendant Barger, the Plaintiff was thrown about her vehicle resulting in injury to the Plaintiff for which she is entitled to recover damages.
6. As a result of the collision as aforesaid, the Plaintiff has suffered pain of body and mind, has incurred expensive and painful medical treatment, has incurred a loss of income and will incur a future loss of income as well as future medical expense, all to her damage in a sum greater than Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars.
WHEREFORE, on her first cause of action the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant Barger for damages in a sum greater than Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) exclusive of interest, costs and attorney’s fees.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT
THE HARTFORF PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
COMES NOW the Plaintiff and for second cause of action against the Defendant The Hartford Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Hartford”) and would allege and state as follows.
7. The Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges each and every material allegation as contained in paragraphs 1-6 and would incorporate the same herein.
8. The Defendant Hanford is a corporation formed under the laws of another state and doing business in Oklahoma, selling automobile and motor vehicle insurance.
9. At the time of the collision as aforesaid, the Defendant Hartford had issued a policy of uninsured or underinsured motorist insurance coverage to the Plaintiff.
10. To the extent that the Plaintiffs damages exceed any applicable policy of liability insurance of the Defendant Barger, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages under her underinsured motorist coverage with the Defendant Hartford up to any policy limits in force and effect at the time of such uninsured motorist coverage.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant Hartford for a sum greater than Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) exclusive of interest, costs and attorney’s fees.
The Hartford Property and Casualty Insurance Company answered as follows:
The named Defendant, The Hartford Property & Casualty Insurance Company (correctly identified as Property & Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford, hereinafter herein after referred to as “Hartford”), by and through its attorney of record, Ann C. Fries of The Law Qffices of Aim Fries, states the following in response to Plaintiffs Petition for N1igence and Personal Injuries:
1. States that the First Cause of Action, Paragraphs 1 through 6, inclusive, is not directed toward this Defendant; therefore, Defendant does not answer further.
2. In response to the Second Cause of Action set forth in Paragraphs 7 through 10, inclusive, this Defendant admits that a motor vehicle accident occurred on or about November 24, 2010, on eastbound West 71St Street approaching Tulsa Hill Drive in Tulsa County and that Co-Defendant Barger struck Plaintiff from behind. Defendant further admits that at the time of the subject accident, Plaintiff had in effect a policy of insurance providing underinsured motorist coverage with Defendant Hartford, Defendant is a corporation formed under the laws of another state but doing Oklahoma, but at this stage of discovery, has insufficient information with which to admit or deny the nature and extent of Plaintiffs damages and the application of the underinsured motorist coverage provisions.
3. To the extent not specifically admitted herein, Defendant denies each and every other allegation set forth within the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
4. By way of further answer and affirmative defense, pleading in the alternative only if need there be, Defendant states the following:
A. At this stage of discovery, Defendant has insufficient information with which to admit or deny whether Plaintiff is an underinsured motorist.
B. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affimiative defenses as they are revealed through discovery.
WHEREFORE, having fully responded to the Petition, Defendant prays for judgment in its behalf against the Plaintiff, for the costs of this action and for any other relief provided by the Court.
Outcome: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, MARIA L EASTER, and dismisses the above styled and numbered cause in its entirety with prejudice to a refihing.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
