Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Dale Young v. Melissa Hale
Date: 12-10-2013
Case Number: CJ-2012-308
Judge: Paul K. Woodward
Court: District Court, Garfield County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Randy L. Wagner
Defendant's Attorney: Eric Grantham for Deah Bush
William D. Perrine and Reagan Leigh Madison for National Union Fire Insurance Company
Description:
Dale Young, individually and on behalf of Dalton Young, a minor child Tammy Young, Deah Bush and Justin Parr sued Melissa Hale on a negligence theory claiming:
1. That the Plaintiffs, Dale Young, Tammy Young, Justin Parr, and Dalton Young, are residents of Garfield County, State of Oklahoma.
2. That the Plaintiff Deah Bush is a resident of Haskell County, State of Oklahoma.
3. That the Defendant Melissa Hale, hereinafter referred to as "Haleâ€, is a resident of Haskell County, State of Oklahoma.
4. That National Union Fire Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as "National Unionâ€is a foreign corporation doing business within the confines of the State of Oklahoma.
5. That Chartis Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as "Chartis†is a foreign corporation doing business within the confines of the State of Oklahoma.
6. That on or about December 9,2011, Dale Young was operating a motor vehicle, insured by either National Union or Chartis, within the confines of Stigler, Oklahoma. Dale Young was traveling on Highway 9 in the south-bound lane of traffic.
7. That all of the remaining Plaintiffs were passengers of the motor vehicle being operated by Dale Young.
8. That the Defendant Hale, was operating a motor vehicle on the same highway. However, Hale was traveling north-bound in the south-bound lane of traffic.
9. That the Young vehicle collided with the Hale vehicle causing all the occupants of the Young vehicle to sustain personal injury. The direct cause of the collision was the gross negligence of Hale.
10. That Hale failed to maintain a safe speed, keep a proper look about, travel in the correct lane of traffic, failure to avoid an accident, and failure to pay full time and attention to the roadway.
11. That due to the gross negligence and actions of Hale, the occupants of thc Young vehicle have sustained injuries over and above the liability policy limits of Hale's vehicle.
12. That the Plaintiff have repeatedly placed both National Union and Chartis on notice and demand for Uninsured Motorists andlor Underinsured Motorists benefits that may be available on the Young vehicle.
13. That neither National Union and/or Chartis can produce a valid waiver of Uninsured Motorist benefits as required by Oklahoma law. Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested either that a valid waiver be produced or acknowledge the existence of Uninsured Motorist coverage for said loss.
14. That neither National Union and/or Chartis have investigated this loss after being placed on notice of it. Neither National Union andlor Chartis has dealt with the Plaintiffs in a good-faith manner.
15. That both National Union andlor Chartis have breached their contractual obligations to the Plaintiffs for the evaluation and tendering of Uninsured Motorist benefits.
WHEREFOR PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request damages in excess of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), costs, interest, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
Defendant appeared and answered, as follows:
1. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph I and, therefore, denies the same.
2. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 2 and, therefore, denies the same.
3. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 3 and, therefore, denies the same.
4. NUFIC admits that it is a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma, as alleged in Paragraph 4.
5. NUFIC denies Paragraph 5 and states that Chartis Insurance Company is not a legal entity or a proper party to this action.
6. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 6 and, therefore, denies the same.
7. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 7 and, therefore, denies the same.
8. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 8 and, therefore, denies the same.
9. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 9 and, therefore, denies the same.
10. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 10 and, therefore, denies the same.
11. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 11 and, therefore, denies the same.
12. NUFIC admits that a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits was made with regard to an accident that allegedly occurred between Ms. Melissa K. Hale and Mr. Dale Fl. Young on or about December 9, 2011. NUFIC denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 12.
13. NUFIC denies Paragraph 13 and states that a valid waiver of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage was produced to Plaintiffs.
14. NUFIC denies Paragraph 14.
15. NUFIC denies Paragraph 15.
NUFIC'S DEFENSES
NUFIC asserts the following defenses. Should NUFIC determine that any of the defenses are not applicable, NUFIC will withdraw them. NUFIC expressly reserves the right to add additional defenses, as this case is in the beginning stages and discovery has not been conducted.
1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against NUFIC.
2. NUFIC was not properly served with process.
3. Chartis Insurance Company is not a legal entity or a proper party to this action, as it did not issue any policy of insurance under which Plaintiffs may be claiming benefits, nor did it administer any claim for benefits made by Plaintiffs.
4. There is no uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for the claimed loss.
5. NUFIC has produced a valid waiver of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to Plaintiffs.
6. NUFIC properly investigated the claimed loss after being placed on notice of it.
7. At all times relevant to Plaintiffs' cause of action, NUFIC acted in good faith.
8. NUFIC has not breached any contractual obligations to Plaintiffs.
9. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
10. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
11. NUFIC asserts all provisions, exclusions, conditions, and terms of the applicable contract of insurance.
12. NUFIC has complied with all duties, obligations, and responsibilities under the applicable contract of insurance.
WHEREFORE, NUFIC requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and award costs, fees, and any other relief to NUFIC as this Court deems just and equitable.
1. That the Plaintiffs, Dale Young, Tammy Young, Justin Parr, and Dalton Young, are residents of Garfield County, State of Oklahoma.
2. That the Plaintiff Deah Bush is a resident of Haskell County, State of Oklahoma.
3. That the Defendant Melissa Hale, hereinafter referred to as "Haleâ€, is a resident of Haskell County, State of Oklahoma.
4. That National Union Fire Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as "National Unionâ€is a foreign corporation doing business within the confines of the State of Oklahoma.
5. That Chartis Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as "Chartis†is a foreign corporation doing business within the confines of the State of Oklahoma.
6. That on or about December 9,2011, Dale Young was operating a motor vehicle, insured by either National Union or Chartis, within the confines of Stigler, Oklahoma. Dale Young was traveling on Highway 9 in the south-bound lane of traffic.
7. That all of the remaining Plaintiffs were passengers of the motor vehicle being operated by Dale Young.
8. That the Defendant Hale, was operating a motor vehicle on the same highway. However, Hale was traveling north-bound in the south-bound lane of traffic.
9. That the Young vehicle collided with the Hale vehicle causing all the occupants of the Young vehicle to sustain personal injury. The direct cause of the collision was the gross negligence of Hale.
10. That Hale failed to maintain a safe speed, keep a proper look about, travel in the correct lane of traffic, failure to avoid an accident, and failure to pay full time and attention to the roadway.
11. That due to the gross negligence and actions of Hale, the occupants of thc Young vehicle have sustained injuries over and above the liability policy limits of Hale's vehicle.
12. That the Plaintiff have repeatedly placed both National Union and Chartis on notice and demand for Uninsured Motorists andlor Underinsured Motorists benefits that may be available on the Young vehicle.
13. That neither National Union and/or Chartis can produce a valid waiver of Uninsured Motorist benefits as required by Oklahoma law. Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested either that a valid waiver be produced or acknowledge the existence of Uninsured Motorist coverage for said loss.
14. That neither National Union and/or Chartis have investigated this loss after being placed on notice of it. Neither National Union andlor Chartis has dealt with the Plaintiffs in a good-faith manner.
15. That both National Union andlor Chartis have breached their contractual obligations to the Plaintiffs for the evaluation and tendering of Uninsured Motorist benefits.
WHEREFOR PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request damages in excess of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), costs, interest, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
Defendant appeared and answered, as follows:
1. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph I and, therefore, denies the same.
2. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 2 and, therefore, denies the same.
3. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 3 and, therefore, denies the same.
4. NUFIC admits that it is a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma, as alleged in Paragraph 4.
5. NUFIC denies Paragraph 5 and states that Chartis Insurance Company is not a legal entity or a proper party to this action.
6. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 6 and, therefore, denies the same.
7. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 7 and, therefore, denies the same.
8. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 8 and, therefore, denies the same.
9. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 9 and, therefore, denies the same.
10. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 10 and, therefore, denies the same.
11. NUFIC has insufficient information to either admit or deny Paragraph 11 and, therefore, denies the same.
12. NUFIC admits that a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits was made with regard to an accident that allegedly occurred between Ms. Melissa K. Hale and Mr. Dale Fl. Young on or about December 9, 2011. NUFIC denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 12.
13. NUFIC denies Paragraph 13 and states that a valid waiver of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage was produced to Plaintiffs.
14. NUFIC denies Paragraph 14.
15. NUFIC denies Paragraph 15.
NUFIC'S DEFENSES
NUFIC asserts the following defenses. Should NUFIC determine that any of the defenses are not applicable, NUFIC will withdraw them. NUFIC expressly reserves the right to add additional defenses, as this case is in the beginning stages and discovery has not been conducted.
1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against NUFIC.
2. NUFIC was not properly served with process.
3. Chartis Insurance Company is not a legal entity or a proper party to this action, as it did not issue any policy of insurance under which Plaintiffs may be claiming benefits, nor did it administer any claim for benefits made by Plaintiffs.
4. There is no uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for the claimed loss.
5. NUFIC has produced a valid waiver of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to Plaintiffs.
6. NUFIC properly investigated the claimed loss after being placed on notice of it.
7. At all times relevant to Plaintiffs' cause of action, NUFIC acted in good faith.
8. NUFIC has not breached any contractual obligations to Plaintiffs.
9. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
10. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
11. NUFIC asserts all provisions, exclusions, conditions, and terms of the applicable contract of insurance.
12. NUFIC has complied with all duties, obligations, and responsibilities under the applicable contract of insurance.
WHEREFORE, NUFIC requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and award costs, fees, and any other relief to NUFIC as this Court deems just and equitable.
Outcome:
COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Dale Young, individually and on behalf of Dalton Young, Tammy Young, Deah Young Bush and Justin Parr, by and through their attorneys of record, Randy L. Wagner and Jennifer A. Liggett, and dismiss with prejudice their cause of action against the Defendants, National Union Fire Insurance Company and Chartis Insurance Company.
Dismissed without prejudice as to Melissa Hale
Dismissed without prejudice as to Melissa Hale
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Dale Young v. Melissa Hale?
The outcome was: COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Dale Young, individually and on behalf of Dalton Young, Tammy Young, Deah Young Bush and Justin Parr, by and through their attorneys of record, Randy L. Wagner and Jennifer A. Liggett, and dismiss with prejudice their cause of action against the Defendants, National Union Fire Insurance Company and Chartis Insurance Company.Dismissed without prejudice as to Melissa Hale
Which court heard Dale Young v. Melissa Hale?
This case was heard in District Court, Garfield County, Oklahoma, OK. The presiding judge was Paul K. Woodward.
Who were the attorneys in Dale Young v. Melissa Hale?
Plaintiff's attorney: Randy L. Wagner. Defendant's attorney: Eric Grantham for Deah BushWilliam D. Perrine and Reagan Leigh Madison for National Union Fire Insurance Company.
When was Dale Young v. Melissa Hale decided?
This case was decided on December 10, 2013.