Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-25-2014

Case Style: International Insurance Brokers, Ltd., LLC v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company

Case Number: CJ-2013-5885

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Ken Brune and Timothy E. Houchin

Defendant's Attorney: Brian L. Mitchell and Chad Neuens

Description: International Insurance Brokers, Ltd., LLC v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company

Issue # 1.
Issue: ABUSE OF PROCESS (OTHER)
Filed by: INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE BROKERS LTD LLC
Filed Date: 12/31/2013
Party Name: Disposition Information:

Defendant: HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT
Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 06/25/2014. Dismissed- Settled.

1. The Plaintiff, JIB, is an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company with its principle place of business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
2. Defendant, Hartford, upon information and belief, is a Delaware corporation authorized to sell policies of insurance in the State of Oklahoma and doing business in the State of Oklahoma.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted by JIB and personal jurisdiction over the parties in this action I STATEMENT OF FACTS
4. On or about December 8, 2010, the Defendant, Hartford, filed a lawsuit against JIB under Tulsa County Case No. CS-2010-10193.
5. The claims raised by Hartford against IIB were subsequently consolidated into Tulsa County Case No. CJ-2010-7941.
6. No Final Judgment was reached and, as of the date of this filing, Tulsa County Case No. CJ-2010-7941 remains an open lawsuit.
7. On or about April 18, 2013, while the claims against the numerous parties were ongoing, and without receiving a Final Judgment, Hartford filed a signed and sworn Post- Judgment General Garnishment Summons (the “Garnishment”) and then contacted an entity where JIB has a banking relationship and caused the Garnishment to be served on JIB’s bank.
8. The Garnishment falsely asserted that Hartford had received a Final Judgment upon which Hartford could garnish JIB’s bank accounts.
9. The Garnishment sought to retrieve funds from an account that Hartford knew or should have known to be an IIB client trust account and not funds which were properly I1B’s property.
10. Hartford’s actions in filing and distributing and publicizing the Garnishment have harmed IIB and I1B’s business relationship with its bank and with the public and with JIB’s clientele.
FIRST CLAIM: DEFAMATION BY LIBEL
For its First Claim, Defamation by Libel, IIB alleges and states as follows:
11. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-10 above are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length herein.
12. IIB’s first claim is for Libel which arises under 76 O.S. § 7.
13. As set forth herein, the Defendant, Hartford, the Garnishment filed by Hartford was false and Hartford had no Judgment to enforce against JIB.
14. Hartford, through its filing and delivery of the Garnishment to outside entities, publicized information which is inaccurate and these false writings directly harmed JIB, JIB’s reputation and JIB’s business relationships.
15. Defendant Hartford’s filed and published Garnishment constitutes direct Libel pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1441 in that the Garnishment is a false or malicious unprivileged writing which exposes JIB to public hatred, contempt ridicule or obloquy, deprives JIB of public confidence and injures IIB’s business occupation and confidence within the community.
16. Due to Hartford’s libel JIB has been damaged in an amount exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, International Insurance Brokers, LTD., LLC, respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against the Defendant, Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Connecticut, for all damages resulting from its Libel against JIB, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs associated with this suit including a reasonable attorneys’ fee, and grant such other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity.
SECOND CLAIM: DEFAMATION BY SLANDER
For its Second Claim, Defamation by Slander, JIB alleges and states as follows:
17. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-16 above are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length herein.
18. JIB’s second claim is for Slander which arises under 76 O.S. § 7.
19. As set forth herein, the Defendant, Hartford, the Garnishment filed by Hartford was false and Hartford had no Judgment to enforce against JIB.
20. Hartford, through its representatives made false statements to JIB’s bank regarding Hartford’s allegations of its right to the Garnishment and these false statements directly harmed IIB, IIB’ s reputation and JIB’ s business relationships.
21. Defendant Hartford’s statements regarding the Garnishment constitutes Slander pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1442 in that the statements regarding the Garnishment tended to injure IIB directly in its business and imputed to JIB a general disqualification to conduct JIB’s business and further that Hartford’s slanderous statements were intended to lessen I1B’s profit.
22. Due to Hartford’s slander IIB has been damaged in an amount exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, International Insurance Brokers, LTD., LLC, respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against the Defendant, Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Connecticut, for all damages resulting from its Slander against IIB, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs associated with this suit including a reasonable attorneys’ fee, and grant such other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity.
THIRD CLAIM: ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS
For its Third Claim, Abuse of Legal Process, JIB alleges and states as follows:
23. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-22 above are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length herein.
24. As set forth herein, the Defendant, Hartford, improperly filed a Garnishment containing false information in an attempt to retrieve funds from IIB’s client trust account.
25. Hartford’s filing and service of the Garnishment on IIB’s banking partner constituted improper use of the Court’s process. Hartford’s filing and service of the Garnishment were primarily intended for the ulterior and improper motive of garnishing funds not legally awarded to Hartford and such actions caused resulting damage to JIB.
26. Due to Hartford’s slander JIB has been damaged in an amount exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, International Insurance Brokers, LTD., LLC, respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against the Defendant, Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Connecticut, for all damages resulting from its Abuse of Legal Process, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs associated with this suit including a reasonable attorneys’ fee, and grant such other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity.
FOURTH CLAIM: INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS
For its Fourth Claim, Intentional Interference with Business Relations, JIB alleges and states as follows:
27. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-26 above are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length herein.
28. As set forth herein, the Defendant, Hartford, the Garnishment filed by Hartford was false and Hartford had no Judgment to enforce against JIB.
29. The actions taken by Hartford intended to lead to the loss of JIB’s business and banking relationships and to harm JIB’s income.
30. JIB has business and contractual rights with which Hartford has intentionally interfered.
31. The interference by Hartford was malicious, wrongful, and the interference was neither justified, privileged nor excusable.
32. JIB suffered damage that was proximately sustained as a result of the interference by Hartford.
33. Due to Hartford’s intentional interference with IIB’s business relations JIB has been damaged in an amount exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, International Insurance Brokers, LTD., LLC, respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against the Defendant, Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Connecticut, for all damages resulting from its Intentional Interference with IIB ‘s Business Relations, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs associated with this suit including a reasonable attorneys’ fee, and grant such other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity.

Outcome:

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: