Date: 11-04-2013

Case Style: Thello Jackson v. Brandi Jo Cagle

Case Number: CJ-2013-1813

Judge: Rebecca B. Nightingale

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Best Tulsa Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Bart A. Chancellor for Brandi Jo Cagle

Mark Warman for Cornerstone National Insurance Company

Description: Thello Jackson sued Brandi Jo Cagle and Cornerstone National Insurance Company on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. That the Plaintiff is a resident ofTulsa County, State of Oklahoma; that Defendant, BRANDI JO CAGLE, is a resident of Rogers County, State of Oklahoma; and, that Defendant,
CORNERSTONE NATIONAL INSTJRANCE COMPANY, is an insurance company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and doing business in the State of Oklahoma. That -,,
the complaint alleged herein occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and that this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter herein.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2. On October 22, 2011, on 144 westbound, 0003 miles West of its intersection with Peoria Avenue, in the City of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma, the Defendant, BRANDI JO CAGLE, negligently drove her vehicle into the vehicle being operated by Plaintiff, THELLO JACKSON.


3. The actions of Defendant, BRANDI JO CAGLE, violated the following traffic ordinances of Title 37 of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma Traffic Code as follows, to-wit:

a. Title 37, Section 611. YIELD SIGNS.

The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign shall slow down to a speed reasonable for existing conditions or shall stop, if necessary, yielding the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing the street on which he is driving and to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another street so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard.

b. Title 37, Section 645A. INATTENTIVE DRIVING.

It shall be unlawful and an offense for any driver to fail to remain alert and give full attention to the safe operation of his vehicle while it is in motion.

4. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, BRANDI JO CAGLE, Plaintiff; THELLO JACKSON, was injured and his injuries are permanent, painful and progressive. When injured, Plaintiff, THELLO JACKSON, was 59 years of age with a life expectancy of 19.4 more years according to the U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012.
5. As a result of the injuries, Plaintiff, THELLO JACKSON, has and will incur medical expenses, has and will suffer pain ofmind and body, has and will lose wages and has had his earning capacity impaired.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THELLO JACKSON, prays for judgment against the Defendant, BRANDI JO CAGLE, in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code together with the costs of this action.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1. COMES NOW the Plaintiff, THELLO JACKSON, and for the SECOND CAUSE OF
ACTION hereby restates and re-alleges the allegations contained within paragraphs 1-5 ofthe FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION as if fully re-stated herein, and further states and alleges as follows:

2. That, at the time ofthe collision, CORNERSTONE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, had a policy of insurance on a 2004 Chevrolet Malibu Classic automobile being owned by the Plaintiff, THELLO JACKSON, that had uninsured/under-insured motorists coverage in the amount of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) per person or FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) per accident. The policy number is 93511039329. It is believed by Plaintiff that, at the time of the collision, the Defendant, BRANDI JO CAGLE, was provided insurance coverage by Geico, but that said Defendant is believed to be under insured in regard to this claim, and that Plaintiff is entitled to recover from CORNERSTONE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, TWNETY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) on the policy of insurance.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THELLO JACKSON, prays for judgment against the Defendant, CORNERSTONE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in the amount of $25,000.00 together with the costs of this action.


Brandi Jo Cagle appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in the Petition tiled 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 time 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 Plaintiff’s Petition, and therefore denyfies) the same, and demand(s) strict proof thereof.

AfFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed a risk of harm by virtue actions and conduct cit the time of the accident, thereby
recovery herein, 5. As to Defendant, the occident was unavoidable and occurred without negligence on her part.

6. The Defendant denies the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injures and damages1 if any.

7. The injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition are the result of preexisting health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this accident and for which Defendant Es not liable.

8. The injuries complained olin Plaintiff’s 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,

9. Reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment.

10. Discovery in this case is just commencing, and reserves the right to amend his answer to assert additional affirmative defenses as they may be ascertained.

WHEREFORE. premises considered, Defendant prays that Plaintiff’s 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.

Cornerstone appealed and answered as follows:

1. Defendant denies generally and specifically each, every and all claims asserted in said Petition, except for the allegation that the incident occurred on the date and at the location alleged in said Petition.

2. This Defendant specifically denies that Brandi Jo Cagle is uninsured or underinsured as defined by Oklahoma law and that any benefits due and owing under the policy to Thello Jackson is unwarranted at this time.

3. Defendant is unable at this time, prior to discovery having been completed, to delineate other possible defenses to Plaintiffs claims other than as contained within this Answer, and therefore, reserves the right to add other defenses which may be discovered prior to pretrial order herein.

CROSS CLAIM

COMES NOW the Defendant, Cornerstone National Insurance Company, and for its Cross Claim against the Co-Defendant, Brandi Jo Cagle, would allege and state as follow:

1. This Defendant issued a policy of insurance providing uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to the Plaintiff, Thello Jackson.

2. This Defendant’s insured was involved in an accident with the Defendant Brandi Jo Cagle on October 22, 2911.

3. This Defendant has been called upon to pay uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits to the Plaintiff. Should this Defendant be required to pay said benefits to the Plaintiff then it is entitled to a judgment against the Co-Defendant by way of subrogation in any amount it is called upon to pay to the Plaintiff up to including the policy limits of
$25,000.00.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Defendant, Cornerstone National Insurance Company, denies that it owes any benefits to the Plaintiff herein. In the alternative, Cornerstone National Insurance Company, would state that it is entitled to judgment against the Co-Defendant, Brandi Jo Cagle, for any amount it is required to pay together with interest, costs and attorney fees as allowed by law.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: