MOORE v. MONSANTO COMPANY et al complaint

BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK-D1 Cause Number: 2014-13 PLAINTIFF A TTORNEY(S) DORSEY, BRANDON I. POST OFFICE BOX 13427 JACKSON, MS 392363427

Docket Page JAMES E. MOORE

VS. MONSANTO COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN I

STATEflE MISS., BOLIVAR COUNTY CERtipEDftTRUECOpY

"• C ' f5,

Cause Number: 2014-13

Date Entered Book/Page PLEADINGS, EXHIBITS,ORDERS FILED,DISPOSITION, ETC. 11/14/2014

11/14/2014

11/14/2014

11/14/2014

11/17/2014

11/17/2014

11/17/2014

11/18/2014

12/11/2014

0 BF BAD FAITH Case Filed on 11/14/2014.

0 A/R account 2354 created for JAMES E. MOORE.

0 Payment Received of $160 For AR Payment Current Balance is $0 Referring Receipt Number: 102384 Received by:

0 CIVIL COVER SHEET, COMPLAINT (FILED) (SUMMONS ISSUED AND HAND GIVEN TO ATTY)

0 Judge SMITH, III ALBERT B. assigned.

0 CIVIL COVER SHEET EMAILED TO MS. REBECCA FOR JUDGE ASSIGNMENT

0 LETTER OF ASSIGNMENT (SENT TO ATTORNEY OF RECORD)

0 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR BAD FAITH AND DAMAGES (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) (FILED) ("FILED" STAMPED COPY RETURNED TO ATTY)

0 RECEIVED REQUEST LETTER FROM ATTORNEY (CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $19.50 WAS RECEIVED ON 12/11/2014 FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF FILE # 2014-13. CERTIFIED COPY OF FILE WAS RETURNED/MAILED TO ATTORNEY IN SELF-ADDRESSED STAMPED (EXPRESS MAIL) ENVELOPE ON 12/11/2014.

Thursday, December 11, 2014 Page 1 of 1

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 1 of 37 PageID #: 8

Civil Case Filing Form (To be completed by Attorney/Party V

Prior to Filing of Pleading)

c

Mississippi Supreme Court

Administrative Office of Courts

Form AOC/Ol (Rev 2009)

mm eb County # Judicial Court ID

District (CH, CI, CO)

I| i| H M 'H1 1onth Date Year V

I S i Local Docket ID

In the CvTCwyV

Month

^hisareaJoê_com£jet^_b^_clerj^ Court of '?^V\V^r County 1S*-

Case Number if filed prior to 1/1/94

Judicial District

Origin of £(iit (Place an "X" in one box only) Initial Filing Reinstated

• Remanded • Reopened • Foreign Judgment Enrolled • Joining Suit/Action

• Transfer from Other court • Appeal

| | Other

Plaintiff - Party(ies) Initially Bringing Suit Should Be Entered First - Enter Additional Plaintiffs on Separate Form Individual /V\qQK~&-- OXbvie>

Last Name First Name Maiden Name, if applicable _ Check (x) if Individ ual Plainitiff is acting in capacity as Executor(trix) or Administrator(trix) of an Estate, and enter style:

Estate of _ Check (x) if Individual Planitiff is acting in capacity as Business Owner/Operator (d/b/a) or State Agency, and enter entity:

D/B/A or Agency

E. M.I. Jr/Sr/lil/IV

Business Enter legal name of business, corporation, partnership, agency - If Corporation, indicate the state where incorporated

Check (x) if Busi ness Planitiff is filing suit in the name of an entity other than the above, and enter below: D/B/A

Address of Plaintiff •

Attorney (Name & Address) MS Bar No. Check (x) if Individual Filing Initia l Pleading is NOT an attorney.

Signature of Individual Filing:

Defendant - Name of Defendant - Enter Additional Defendants on Separate Form Individual

Last Name First Name Maiden Name, if applicable M.I. Check (x) if Individua l Defendant is acting in capacity as Executor(trix) or Administrator(trix) of an Estate, and enter style: •Estate of Check (x) if Individual Defendant is acting in capacity as Business Owner/Operator (d/b/a) or State Agency, and enter entity:

D/B/A or Agency

Business jfV\oV\5fctv\o . ftCS fty/jg/T 1£AI-3 Enter legal name of Business, corporation, partnership, agency - If Corporation, indicite the'sfate where incorporated

• Check (x) if Business Defendant is acting in the name of an entity other than the above, and enter below: D/B/A

Jr/Sr/lll/IV

Attorney (Name & Address) - If Known MS Bar No.

Damages Sought: Compensatory $

Nature of Suit (Place an "X" in one box only)

Punitive $ _Check fx) if child support is contemplated as an issue in this suit.* *lf checked, please submit completed Child Support Information Sheet with this Cover Sheet

Real Property Domestic Relations | | Business/Commercial | • Adoption - Contested n Adverse Possession

n Child Custody/Visitation . • Accounting (Business) • Adoption - Uncontested n Ejectment

n Child Support • Business Dissolution • Consent to Abortion Minor n Eminent Domain

• Contempt • Debt Collection • Removal of Minority • Eviction

n Divorce:Fault • • Employment |J=*1 Other n Judicial Foreclosure

n Divorce: Irreconcilable Diff. n Foreign Judgment |J=*1

Civil Rights | n Lien Assertion •

n Domestic Abuse n Garnishment • Elections n Partition

n Emancipation • Replevin • Expungement n Tax Sale: Confirm/Cancel

• Modification

r0-Other • Habeas Corpus • Title Boundary or Easement

n Paternity r0- Probate ] • Post Conviction Relief/Prisoner • Other

n Property Division • Accounting (Probate) • Other

w , Torts |

n Separate Maintenance • Birth Certificate Correction 1 Contract | w Bad Faith

n Termination of Parental Rights n Commitment - • Breach of Contract n Fraud

n UIFSA (eff 7/1/97; formerly URESA) • Conservatorship • Installment Contract • Loss of Consortium

n Other n Guardianship • Insurance n Malpractice - Legal Appeals | • Heirship • Specific Performance • Malpractice - Medical

n Administrative Agency • Intestate Estate n Other • Mass Tort

n County Court CI Minor's Settlement i Statutes/Rules | n Negligence - General

n Hardship Petition (Driver License) • Muniment of Title • Bond Validation n Negligence - Motor Vehicle j

n Justice Court • Name Change • Civil Forfeiture . • Product Liability j

n MS Dept Employment Security • Testate Estate • Declaratory Judgment • Subrogation j

n Worker's Compensation • Will Contest • Injunction or Restraining Order • Wrongful Death 1

• Other • Other • Other • Other j


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF BOLIVAR COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

JAMES E. MOORE PLAINTIFF

VS. CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 2DI4- IS

MONSANTO COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; DAVID HORTON; JOHN DOE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 10 AND JOHN DOE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 10 DEFENDANTS

COMPLAINT FOR BAD FAITH AND DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMES NOW, James Moore (i.e. hereinafter referred to in the instant Complaint For Bad Faith

And Damages as "Plaintiff ), by and through his attorney, Brandon I. Dorsey, BRANDON I. DORSEY,

PLLC, Post Office Box 13427, Jackson, Mississippi 39236 - 3427, and files this his Complaint For Bad Faith

And Damages, and in support thereof, would state unto this Honorable Court as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. That Plaintiff, namely James E. Moore, at all times relevant to the instant Complaint For Bad

Faith And Damages, was an adult resident citizen of Greenville, Washington County, Mississippi.

2.—That-Defendantrnamely-MonsantoGompany-was-a-eompany-existing-andoperating-in

accordance with the applicable laws of the State Of Mississippi. Monsanto Company may be served with

process of this Honorable Court by serving its registered agent for service of process, namely Corporation

Services Company, located at 506 South President Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39201.

3. That Defendant, namely ACE American Insurance Company, License Number 7700552, NAIC

Number 22667, is a foreign corporation doing business in the State Of Mississippi and can be served with

process of this Honorable Court by serving its registered agent for service of process and / or the Insurance

Commissioner of the State Of Mississippi.


4- That Defendant, namely Indemnity Insurance Company Of North American, License Number

8500045, NAIC Number 43575, is a foreign corporation doing business in the State Of Mississippi and can

be served with process of this Honorable Court by serving its registered agent for service of process and /

or the Insurance Commissioner of the State Of Mississippi.

5. That Defendant, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., is a foreign corporation doing

business in the State Of Mississippi and can be served with process of this Honorable Court by serving its

registered agent for service of process, namely C.T. Corporation Systems, located at 645 Lakeland East

Drive, Suite # 101, Flowood, Mississippi and / or the Insurance Commissioner of the State Of Mississippi.

6. That Defendant, David Horton is a resident of the State Of Mississippi, more specifically

Bolivar County, Mississippi and may be served with process of this Honorable Court by serving him at 1

Cotton Row, Scott, Mississippi 38772.

7. That John Doe Corporate Defendants 1 through 10 are those Defendants whose identities are

currently unknown to Plaintiff at the time of filing the instant Complaint For Bad Faith And Damages, but

same will be amended and the name of any and all such John Doe Corporate Defendants 1 through 10

whose identities Plaintiff discovers will be added as party Defendants to the instant action.

8. That John Doe Individual Defendants 1 through 10 are those Defendants whose identities are

currently unknown to Plaintiff at the time of filing the instant Complaint For Bad Faith And Damages, but

same will be amended and the name of any and all such John Doe Individual Defendants 1 through 10

whose identities Plaintiff discovers will be added as party Defendants to the instant action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. That the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District Of Hinds County, Mississippi has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter herein since the instant action arises out of the

negligent acts and / or omissions committed in the First Judicial District Of Hinds County, Mississippi.

Page 2 of 8


io. That venue is proper in the First Judicial District Of Bolivar County, Mississippi pursuant to

the applicable provisions of Section 11 - n - 3 of the Mississippi Code Annotated of 1972, as amended as

conduct that is the subject of the instant civil action substantially occurred in the First Judicial District Of

Bolivar County, Mississippi.

FACTS

n. That Plaintiff adopts and herein incorporates by reference each and every allegation as set

forth herein above.

12. That at all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was insured under a certain Workers'

Compensation and Employer Liability Insurance Policy issued by Defendants, ACE American Insurance

Company and Indemnity Insurance Company Of North America, Policy Number "TBD" and providing

benefits for medical expenses incurred by the insured (i.e. Plaintiff) as a result of injury and / or sickness

and benefits for loss wages incurred by the insured (i.e. Plaintiff) as a result of accident disease, injury or

sickness suffered by the insured (i.e. Plaintiff) during the course and scope of his employment with

Defendant, Monsanto Company. The Plaintiff, at the time of filing the instant Complaint For Bad Faith

And Damages does not have in his possession a true and correct copy of said insurance policy, but this

instant Complaint For Bad Faith And Damages will be amended and same will be attached hereto when a

copy of same has in fact been obtained.

13. That on or about November 14, 2013, Plaintiff, while in the course and scope of his

employment with Defendant, Monsanto Company, was injured when his glove was "caught in" a certain

cotton implement, resulting in his right thumb, right index finger and right middle finger, respectively,

became "mangled" and subsequently amputated.

14. That Plaintiff continued to receive treatment through March 24, 2014. At that time, his

treating physician opined that as of March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs occupational therapy was complete. Said

physician further opined that Plaintiff could not return to his original laboring occupation and would be at

maximum medical improvement as of April 21, 2014, which was six (6 ) months post injury.

Page 3 of 8


15. That on or about April 18, 2014, Plaintiff was contacted by Defendant, Monsanto Company,

specifically through its agent, namely, Rex Green, and was advised that he could only return to his

employment WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS.

16. That on or about April 21, 20x4, Defendants ceased providing Plaintiff with benefits and

Plaintiff has not received any such benefits since "that time."

17. That the applicable provisions of Section 71 - 3 - 37 (1) of the Mississippi Code Annotated of

1972, as amended, places a mandatory duty on the employer (i.e. Monsanto Company and David Horton)

and on the insurer (i.e. ACE American Insurance Company, Indemnity Insurance Company Of North

America and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.) to pay the statutory benefits promptly as called

for by statute.

18. That Plaintiff avers that Defendants have failed to comply with the strict standard of fidelity

and have unreasonably delayed benefits due to its continued lack of prompt attention, thus

demonstrating gross negligence or reckless disregard.

COUNT NUMBER 1 - CLAIM FOR POLICY BENEFITS

19. That Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegation ( s) set forth in paragraphs

number 1 through 18.

20. That Plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement on or about April 21, 2014. However,

when Plaintiff attempted to return to work, he was denied access and advised that he could only return to

said employment WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. Plaintiff avers that Defendant Monsanto has refused to hire

and / or reinstate him.

21. That Plaintiff avers that Defendants have consistently failed to promptly investigate and

adjust ths claim that serves as the basis for the instant civil action.

22. That Plaintiff avers that as a result of the serious and debilitating injuries that he sustained,

he has not been able to earn any income since the date of the accident and has further suffered wage loss

since November 14, 2013.

Page 4 of 8


23. That Plaintiff avers that he will likely continue to suffer wage loss in the future.

24. That Plaintiff performed all of the conditions for coverage set forth in the afore refrenced

mentioned policy giving Defendants due notice and proof of disability and loss wages; and have also

demanded payments for hospital bills and loss wages. Despite these demands, Defendants have failed and

/ or refused to pay such benefits which are now due and remain unpaid, all to, the damage of the Plaintiff

in the amount of said benefits together with interest thereon.

COUNT NUMBER 2 - CLAIM FOR BAD FAITH FAILURE TO PAY BENEFITS

25. That Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 24.

26. That at all times relevant, Defendants have wrongfully and in bad faith withheld benefits

due to Plaintiff under the policy of insurance mentioned above. Such bad faith was and is manifested by

the following conduct:

a. The Defendants have refused to pay the benefit (s ) knowing that the claim to be wholly

valid; that the benefit ( s ) were and are justly due under the term ( s ) of the policy; and

that the Plaintiff is financially and emotionally distressed by reason of the disability,

illness, wage loss and the Defendants' failure to promptly investigate / and or adjust the

claim and the Defendants' failure to pay benefits;

b. The Defendants, with knowledge of medical reports, confirming the Plaintiffs illness

during the described period, nevertheless contends without probable cause, and with no

legitimate or arguable reason, that the Plaintiff is not entitled to said benefits;

c. The Defendants have deprived the Plaintiff of benefits justly due him when the

Defendants knew that those benefits were needed by Plaintiff and his family;

d. The Defendants have failed to provide promptly or at all a reasonable explanation of the

basis for failing to promptly adjust and / or investigate the claim and

Page 5 of 8


e. The Defendants have failed to provide for adequate claim ( s) handling personnel and

procedures to effectively and appropriately respond to Plaintiff s claims.

COUNT NUMBER 3 - DECLARATORY ACTION


through 26.

28. That Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration from the Court that benefits are covered under the

terms of the policy of insurance referenced herein above.

COUNT NUMBER 4 - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DEFENDANTS


through 28.

30. That Defendants have a contractual duty to pay, investigate and adjust the claims at issue

pursuant to the afore referenced policy of insurance.

31. That by failing to pay the claims at issue in these premises, Defendants have breached the

contract.

COUNT NUMBER 5 - BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BY DEFENDANTS


through 31.

33. That all insurance contracts contain an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

34. That Defendants owe Plaintiff a duty of good faith and fair dealing.

35. That Defendants have breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing by unjustifiably

refusing to investigate, adjust and pay Plaintiffs claims pursuant to the afore referenced insurance policy.

36. That Defendants' actions are tortuous and malicious in nature and is without a legitimate or

arguable basis.

Page 6 of 8


37- That Defendants' tortuous breach of their duties of good faith and fair dealing is the

proximate cause of damages suffered by Plaintiff, which include but are not limited to contractual damages

and consequential damages.

38. That Defendants' actions in these premises rises to the level of bad faith and / or tortuous

breach of contract, and as such, warrant the imposition of punitive damages, all costs of litigation and an

award of attorney's fees incurred in these premises.

COUNT NUMBER 6 - FAILURE TO PROMPTLY INVESTIGATE THE CLAIM BY DEFENDANTS

39. That Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs


40. That Defendants assumed the investigation of the claim.

41. That Defendants had a duty to fully, fairly, adequately and correctly investigate and adjust

Plaintiff s claim.

42. That Defendants breached this duty by failing to adequately investigate and adjust Plaintiffs

claim.

43. That Defendants' tortuous breach of their duties to promptly investigate is the proximate

cause of damages suffered by Plaintiff, which include but are not limited to contractual damages and

consequential damages.

COUNT NUMBER 7 - NEGLIGENCE / GROSS NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS



45. That Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to act with reasonable care.

46. That Defendants' actions have been willful, wanton and with reckless disregard of Plaintiffs

rights so as to constitute gross negligence.

47. That Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of its attorney's fees and an award of punitive

damages.

Page 7 of 8


COUNT NUMBER 8 - CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES



49. That the course of conduct perpetrated by Defendants described herein was deliberately

undertaken, was wanton, willful and in reckless disregard of the rights and well - being of Plaintiff, and was

attended by malice and vindictiveness on the part of Defendants, and by reason thereof, Plaintiff requests

that a jury be permitted to determine the appropriateness of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff demands judgment of, from and against

Defendants as follows:

a. A judgment requiring Defendants to pay the sum of all benefits due in an amount to be

determined, together with interest from November 14, 2013;

b. A judgment for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the jury and

c. A judgment for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.

Respectfully submitted,

OF COUNSEL:

BRANDON I. DORSEY, PLLC POST OFFICE BOX 13427 JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39236 - 3427 TELEPHONE: ( 601) 969 - 6960 FACSIMILE: ( 601) 969 - 6959

Page 8 of 8

EXHIBIT A


(


JAMES E. MOORE

VS.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

MONSANTO COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; DAVID HORTON; JOHN DOE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS i THROUGH 10 AND JOHN DOE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 10

SUMMONS

DEFENDANTS

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY OF BOLIVAR

TO: Monsanto Company c / o Corporation Services Company (It's Registered Agent For Service Of Process) 506 South President Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT

THE COMPLAINT WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THIS SUMMONS IS IMPORTANT AND YOU MUST TAKE

IMMEDIATE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.

You are required to mail or hand - deliver a copy of a written response to the Complaint For Bad Faith And

Damages With Discovery Attached to BRANDON I. DORSEY , BRANDON I. DORSEY, PLLC, POST OFFICE BOX

13427, JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39236 - 3427, attorney for the Plaintiffs. Your response must be mailed or delivered

within forty - five ( 45 ) days from the date of delivery of this Summons and Complaint For Bad Faith And damages or a

judgment by default will be entered against you for the money or other relief demanded in the Complaint For Bad Faith

And Damages.

You must also file the original of your response with the Clerk of Court within a reasonable time afterward.

ISSUES UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of said Court, this the( l^day o f j f l j [ k J of 2014.

MARILYN L. KE LLY, CLjSRK CIRCUIT COURT? BiR&FJUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

BY:

$ si

D.C.


PLAINTIFF

2DH-I3


JAMES E. MOORE

VS. CrVTL ACTION NUMBER

MONSANTO COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; DAVID HORTON; JOHN DOE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 10 AND JOHN DOE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 10

SUMMONS

DEFENDANTS


TO: ACE American Insurance Company c / o Insurance Commissioner Of Mississippi Jackson, Mississippi 39201

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT




Damages With Discovery Attached to BRANDON I. DORSEY, BRANDON I. DORSEY, PLLC, POST OFFICE BOX


ges or ad-


And Damages.

You must also file the original of your response with the Clerk ofCourt within a reasonable time afterward.

ISSUES UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of said Court, this the _U of 2014.

MARILYN L. KE LLY, CLERK CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF BOLIVAR COUt„

X&S-

BY: D.C.

<&D tt#




CIVIL ACTION NUMBER ^ 0/ ^ VS.


SUMMONS


TO: Indemnity Insurance Company Of North America c / o Insurance Commissioner Of Mississippi Jackson, Mississippi 39201

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT







And Damages.

You must also file the original of your response with the Clerk iurt within a-j-easonable time afterward.

ISSUES UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of said Court, this the day of \}\J^> v of 2014.

MARILYN L. KEL LY, CLERK CIRCUIT COURT OF THE i?iRSiF:T0MCIAL DISTRICT OF

of 2014.



VS.


CIVIL ACTION NUMBER


SUMMONS


TO: Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. c / o C.T. Corporation Systems (It's Registered Agent for Service Of Process) 645 Lakelad East Drive - Suite # 101 Flowood, Mississippi

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT








And Damages.

You must also file the original of your response with the Clerk of Court withina reasonable time afterward.

ISSUES UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of said Court, this the) 4 day o f f of 2014.

MARILYN L. KE LLY, CLERK CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF BOLIVAR COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI




VS. CIVIL ACTION NUMBER


SUMMONS


TO: David Horton 1 Cotton Row oration Systems (It's Registered Agent for Service Of Process) Scott, Mississippi 38772

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT








And Damages.

You must also file the original of your response with the Clerk ible time afterward.

ISSUES UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of said Court, this the Court, this the of 2014. of 2014.

MARILYN L. KEL LY, CLERK CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF BOLIVAR COUNTy^S£IÊ|£


MARILYN L. KELLY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CIRCUIT COURT CONVENCES

SECOND MONDAY IN APRIL FIRST MONDANY IN OCTOBER

P.O. BOX 205 ROSEDALE, MS 38769 " PH: 662-759-6521 PH: 662-759-3717

CIRCUIT CLERK BOLIVAR COUNTY

In the matter of: Cause No. 201 4-_T_lJZ _ •U f'

-Versus-

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT CIRCUIT COURT CONVENES

FIRST MONDAY IN MAY FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER

P.O. BOX 670 CLEVELAND, MS 38732 PH: 662-843-2061 PH: 662-846-2943

A A j \AJULt~(t£h^

s~(jju£r\ ̂ od[

LETTER OF ASSIGNMENT

TAKE NOTICE that the above styled and numbered cause has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge:

CHARLES E. WEBSTER P.O. BOX 998

Clarksdale, MS 38614

CEW JEW

TOHNNTF. WA TJS P.O. Box 548

Cleveland, MS 38732

ABS

ALBERT B. SMITH P.O. Box 478

Cleveland, MS 38732

(1) Attached hereto is the ORDER SETTING DEADLINES FOR DISCOVERY, HEARING ON PRELIMINARY MATTERS AND PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT.

(2) Trial date in this cause will be scheduled in the term time or in vacation following receipt and approval of the PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT by the assigned Judge.

OF J?.nf

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff (s):

1. 7>IL<L

(ZT̂ J<-CMj J?2?£ -2VZ1

ss&wew'S" " *'

ÎSSJL Attoniey(s) for D§feMtift(s):

, D.C.


IN THE CIRCUIT CG A T O F T H E ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, QUITMAN AND TUNICA COUNTIES

CIVIL CAUSE NO:. • 2 oN- /?

ORDER SETTING D E A D L I N E S F O R DISCOVERY, HEARING ON PRELIMINAR Y MATTERS AND PRETRIAL STATEMENT

By direction of the Court, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

I) (a) That counsel in above numbered cause shall initiate and complete all

discovery authorized by the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure on or before one-

hundred twenty (120) days after service of an answer by the applicable party. This

deadline includes all depositions which may be of an evidentiary nature as well as for

discovery. No further discovery will be permitted thereafter except by written stipulation

of counsel for the parties filed with the Court Clerk or upon a showing of good cause and

pursuant to order of the assigned judge.

(b) Prior to service of motions for extension of discovery, protective orders and/or

to compel discovery for whatever reason, all counsel shall be under a duty to confer in

good faith to determine to what extent such discovery disputes can be resolved before

presenting the issue to the assigned judge. No such motion shall be heard by the assigned

judge unless counsel for the moving party shall incorporate in his motion a certificate that

he has conferred in good faith with opposing counsel in an effort to resolve the dispute

and has been unable to do so.

(c) Expert witnesses for all parties shall be designated not later than forty-five

(45) days prior to the discovery deadline or any extensions thereof, and discovery

regarding experts shall be completed within the discovery period. The Court will allow


subsequent designati, ind/or d'iscovery of expert witnesses uniy upon a showing of

good cause.

2) That all other motions which may be considered prior to trial shall be filed on.

or before fifteen (J 5) days subsequent to the date fixed in paragraph J (a) of this order and

any extensions thereof. Notice and copy thereof shall be served on counsel for all parties

and on the assigned fudge with informal memo briefs attached and with suggested orders

attached to the copies filed with the assigned judge. It i s contemplated that all motions

will be disposed of by the assigned judge based on informal memo briefs submitted. OraJ

arguments will be permitted only when requested by the judge.

3)(a) That formal pretrial conference before the judge is dispensed with and

matters which may aid in simplification of the issues, the obtaining of admissions of fact

and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof, and other matters which may aid

in the disposition of the case will be contained in a Pretrial Statement.

(b) That counsel with full authority to act for the parties shall confer in person

and complete, sign.i and submit in duplicate a Pretrial Statement to the assigned judge in

the form prescribed by the court, a copy of which is available in the office of the Circuit

Clerk.

(c) That the Pretrial Statement shall be submitted to the assigned judge within

thirty (30) days subsequent to the date fixed for completion of discovery in paragraph

1(a) of this order or within thirty (30) days after disposition of motions, if any, filed

pursuant to paragraph (2) of this order.

(d) That informal memo briefs relating to contested issues of law and any

anticipated questions relating to admissibility of evidence during the course of the trial


and a copy of propol jury instructions will be submitted by counsel with the Pretrial

Statement.

(e) That the pretrial Statement upon receipt and approval will be signed and

filed by the assigned judge. The formal pleadings are considered as merged in the

pretrial statement which shall control the subsequent course of this action.

(f) That the preparation and timely submission of the Pretrial Statement to

the assigned judge is the joint responsibility of all counsel appearing in the case. In the

event counsel for any party fails to cooperate with counsel for the other party(s), the

assigned judge, may on motion of any party, direct and require the attorneys for the

parties to appear before him for pretrial conference.

(4) That the failure by any party and/or attorney to comply with any one or more

of the provisions contained hereinabove shall subject such party and/or attorney to the

imposition of appropriate sanctions including the assessment of costs, expenses and

attorney's fees.

ORDERED BY THE COURT, this the /• day of~i

2 0 / ^ .


\

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, QUITMAN AND TUNICA COUNTIES

RE: ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY ATTORNEYS

All orders submitted to this Court in term time or to any of the undersigned Circuit Judges

in vacation shall be approved by the appropriate attorneys of record pending further order of this

Court.

1. Default Judgments shall be approved by the Plaintiffs attorney, which approval will be

considered by the Court as a certification by said attorney that:

(a) The Complaint states a cause of action both as to liability and amount;

(b) Valid process has been issued by the Circuit Cleric and served according to law;

(c) The Plaintiff has met all requirements of applicable law including the Mississippi Rules

of Civil Procedure; and

(d) The Plaintiff is entitled to a Default Judgment in the form and amount as submitted.

2. Dismissal of actions, with or without prejudice, shall be as provided in Rule 41, M.R.C.P.

and all orders of dismissal shall be approved by all parties/attorneys who have appeared in the action.

3. All other orders and/or judgments shall be approved by a duly authorized attorney of

record for each party in the action.

4. The undersigned Judges may, in their discretion, waive the above requirements.

The Clerics of this Court are authorized and directed to return forthwith any order submitted

which does not comply with the requirements set forth hereinabove. This order shall be spread on

the minutes of this Court and a copy made available to each attorney and/or party of record.


(

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the- k{ day of Februaiy, 2013.

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE


/' (

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, QUITMAN AND TUNICA COUNTIES

RE: NON-FILING OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS

Rule 7(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure limits and defines the pleadings which

are allowed to be filed in any action. Due to the considerable cost to the parties furnishing discovery-

materials, and the problems encountered with storage, this Court adopts the following procedure with

regard to the non-filing of discovery materials with the Court:

1. Interrogatories under Rule 33, M.R.C.P., and answers thereto, and depositions under Rule

30 and 31, M.R.C.P., shall be served upon other counsel or parties as provided by the Rules, but shall

not be filed with the Circuit Court Clerks. The party responsible for service of the discovery material

shall retain the original and become the custodian.

2. If relief is sought under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure concerning any

interrogatories, requests for production or inspection, request for admissions, answers to

interrogatories, responses to requests for admissions or depositions, copies of the portions of the

interrogatories, requests, answers, responses or depositions in dispute shall be filed with the

appropriate Circuit Court Clerk and with the assigned judge contemporaneously with any motion

filed under said rules.

3. If interrogatories, requests, answers, responses or depositions are to be used at trial or are

necessary to a pre-trial motion which might result in a final order on any issue, the portions to be

used shall be considered an exhibit and filed with the clerk at the outset of the trial or at the filing

of the motion insofar as their use can be reasonably anticipated.


4. When documentation of discovery not previously in the record is needed for appeal, the

necessary discovery papers shall be filed with the Clerk by stipulation of counsel or upon an

application and order of the Court.

The Clerks of this Court are authorized and directed to return forthwith discovery materials

submitted for filing which does not comply with the requirements set forth hereinabove. This order

shall be spread on the minutes of this Court and a copy thereof made available to each attorney

and/or party of record.

ORDERED this the_ _ day of February, 2013.

ALBERT B. SMITH, III CI

CHARLES E. WEBSTER CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE


Serial: 129567 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI I

No. 89-R-990I5-SCT FEB o 2 200 IN RE: LOCAL RULES

ORDER

This matter is before die Court en banc on the Petition for Approval of Local Circuit Court

Rule filed by the Honorable Kenneth L. Thomas, the Honorable Albert B. Smith, HI, and the

Honorable Larry O. Lewis of the Eleventh Circuit Court District for approval of a local rule on

mediation. The proposed local rule is identified as Rule 1 - Required Mediation in Civil Cases and

is attached as Exhibit A.

Having considered the petition, the Court finds that the local rule will promote the fair and

efficient administration of justice and that the petition should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Approval of Local Circuit Court Rule

filed by the Honorable Kenneth L. Thomas, the Honorable Albert B. Smith, III, and the Honorable

Larry 0. Lewis of the Eleventh Circuit Court District is hereby granted and the proposed Rule 1-

Required Mediation in Civil Cases as set forth in Exhibit A hereto is approved.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall spread this order upon the

minutes of the Court and shall forthwith forward a true certified copy hereof to West Publishing

Company for publication as soon as practical in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter, Second

Series (Mississippi Edition).

TO GRANT: SMITH, C. J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ. TO DENY: EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ. NOT PARTICIPATING: DIAZ AND RANDOLPH, JJ.

SO ORDERED, this the day of January, 200A


( (



VS. CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 2014 -13

MONSANTO COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; DAVID HORTON; JOHN DOE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS x THROUGH 10 AND JOHN DOE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 10 DEFENDANTS

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR BAD FAITH AND DAMAGES (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED )

COMES NOW, James Moore (i.e. hereinafter referred to in the instant First Amended Complaint

For Bad Faith And Damages as "Plaintiff ), by and through his attorney, Brandon I. Dorsey, BRANDON I.

DORSEY, PLLC, Post Office Box 13427, Jackson, Mississippi 39236 - 3427, and files this his First Amended

Complaint For Bad Faith And Damages, and in support thereof, would state unto this Honorable Court as

follows:

THE PARTIES

1. That Plaintiff, namely James E. Moore, at all times relevant to the instant First Amended

Complaint For Bad Faith And Damages, was an adult resident citizen of Greenville, Washington County,

Mississippi.

2. That Defendant, namely Monsanto Company was a company existing and operating in

accordance with the applicable laws of the State Of Mississippi. Monsanto Company may be served with

process of this Honorable Court by serving its registered agent for service of process, namely Corporation

Services Company, located at 506 South President Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39201.

3. That Defendant, namely ACE American Insurance Company, License Number 7700552, NAIC

Number 22667, is a foreign corporation doing business in the State Of Mississippi and can be served with

process of this Honorable Court by serving its registered agent for service of process and / or the Insurance

Commissioner of the State Of Mississippi.

se? i IF h

SOT 1 8 2014 Page 1 of 13

'I COUNTY,MS. H, CIRCUIT CLgftK

o.e.


4. That Defendant, namely Indemnity Insurance Company Of North American, License Number

8500045, NAIC Number 43575, is a foreign corporation doing business in the State Of Mississippi and can

be served with process of this Honorable Court by serving its registered agent for service of process and /

or the Insurance Commissioner of the State Of Mississippi.

5. That Defendant, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., is a foreign corporation doing

business in the State Of Mississippi and can be served with process of this Honorable Court by serving its

registered agent for service of process, namely C.T. Corporation Systems, located at 645 Lakeland East

Drive, Suite # 101, Flowood, Mississippi and / or the Insurance Commissioner of the State Of Mississippi.

6. That Defendant, David Horton is a resident of the State Of Mississippi, more specifically

Bolivar County, Mississippi and may be served with process of this Honorable Court by serving him at 1

Cotton Row, Scott, Mississippi 38772.

7. That John Doe Corporate Defendants 1 through 10 are those Defendants whose identities are

currently unknown to Plaintiff at the time of filing the instant First Amended Complaint For Bad Faith

And Damages, but same will be amended and the name of any and all such John Doe Corporate

Defendants 1 through 10 whose identities Plaintiff discovers will be added as party Defendants to the

instant action.

8. That John Doe Individual Defendants 1 through 10 are those Defendants whose identities are

currently unknown to Plaintiff at the time of filing the instant First Amended Complaint For Bad Faith

And Damages, but same will be amended and the name of any and all such John Doe Individual

Defendants 1 through 10 whose identities Plaintiff discovers will be added as party Defendants to the

instant action.

Page 2 of 13


JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. That the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District Of Hinds County, Mississippi has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter herein since the instant action arises out of the

negligent acts and / or omissions committed in the First Judicial District Of Hinds County, Mississippi.

10. That venue is proper in the First Judicial District Of Bolivar County, Mississippi pursuant to

the applicable provisions of Section 11 -11 - 3 of the Mississippi Code Annotated of 1972, as amended as

conduct that is the subject of the instant civil action substantially occurred in the First Judicial District Of

Bolivar County, Mississippi.

FACTS

n. That Plaintiff adopts and herein incorporates by reference each and every allegation as set

forth herein above.

12. That at all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was insured under a certain Workers'

Compensation and Employer Liability Insurance Policy issued by Defendants, ACE American Insurance

Company and Indemnity Insurance Company Of North America, Policy Number "TBD" and providing

benefits for medical expenses incurred by the insured (i.e. Plaintiff) as a result of injury and / or sickness

and benefits for loss wages incurred by the insured (i.e. Plaintiff) as a result of accident disease, injury or

sickness suffered by the insured (i.e. Plaintiff) during the course and scope of his employment with

Defendant, Monsanto Company. The Plaintiff, at the time of filing the instant First Amended Complaint

For Bad Faith And Damages does not have in his possession a true and correct copy of said insurance

policy, but this instant First Amended Complaint For Bad Faith And Damages will be amended and same

will be attached hereto when a copy of same has in fact been obtained.

13. That on or about November 14, 2013, Plaintiff, while in the course and scope of his

employment with Defendant, Monsanto Company, was injured when his glove was "caught in" a certain

cotton implement, resulting in his right thumb, right index finger and right middle finger, respectively,

became "mangled" and subsequently amputated.

Page 3 of 13


/ / ( {

14- That Plaintiff continued to receive treatment through March 24, 2014- At that time, his

treating physician opined that as of March 24, 2014. Plaintiffs occupational therapy was complete. Said

physician further opined that Plaintiff could not return to his original laboring occupation and would be at

maximum medical improvement as of April 21, 2014, which was six (6 ) months post injury.

15. That on or about April 18, 2014, Plaintiff was contacted by Defendant, Monsanto Company,

specifically through its agent, namely, Rex Green, and was advised that he could only return to his

employment WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS.

16. That on or about April 21, 2014, Defendants ceased providing Plaintiff with benefits and

Plaintiff has not received any such benefits since "that time."

17. That the applicable provisions of Section 71-3 -37 (x) of the Mississippi Code Annotated of

1972, as amended, places a mandatory duty on the employer (i.e. Monsanto Company and David Horton )

and on the insurer (i.e. ACE American Insurance Company, Indemnity Insurance Company Of North

America and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.) to pay the statutory benefits promptly as called

for by statute.

18. That Plaintiff avers that Defendants have failed to comply with the strict standard of fidelity

and have unreasonably delayed benefits due to its continued lack of prompt attention, thus

demonstrating gross negligence or reckless disregard. In this regard, Plaintiff respectfully avers the

following, to wit:

* December 2, 2013: Counsel for Plaintiff sent letter to Sedgwick that announced said counsel's representation of Plaintiff.

* December 9, 20x3: April Parrish (Sedgwick ) sent a letter to counsel for Plaintiff acknowledging receipt of the letter of representation.

* April x, 20x4: Counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to April Parrish indicating the understanding that Plaintiff had been released to return to work on April 2x, 20x4 with "light duty" restrictions. Said counsel requested a copy of Plaintiff s "job description" as well as any documents that would articulate the disability rating.

* April x, 20x4: Counsel for Plaintiff sent a certain e - mail to April Parrish that mirrored the letter that was sent.

Page 4 of X3


Counsel for Plaintiff received an e - mail from April Parrish indicating that she had requested the "job description" information. Said e - mail also state that she had not received a full copy of Dr. DiPaolo's March 24th report.

Counsel for Plaintiff received a certain e - mail from April Parrish indicating that she was in receipt of copy of the "job description" information.

Counsel for Plaintiff sent a medical authorization that was addressed to Dr. DiPaolo.

Counsel for Plaintiff received an e - mail from April Parrish that contained a copy of Dr. DiPaolo's March 24th report. However, she stated that she still needed Dr. DiPaolo to address PPI and that once she received "that", she would contact said counsel for Plaintiff.

Counsel for Plaintiff called April Parrish but left voice message.

Counsel for Plaintiff received a copy of the B -18 form that was sent by April Parrish.

Counsel for Plaintiff sent e - mail to April Parrish stating that the "return - to - work" document from Dr. DiPaolo stated that Plaintiff was to return to work April 21st and that when Plaintiff attempted to return to work, the employer told him that he would not be allowed to return to work because there had been no explanation in terms of his restrictions. Counsel for Plaintiff also stated that his efforts to contact Ms. Parrish had not been successful and asked that Ms. Parrish contact him.

Counsel for Plaintiff called April Parrish but left voice mail.

Counsel for Plaintiff called April Parrish but left voice message.

Counsel for Plaintiff received the "disability rating / restriction" from Dr.DiPaolo.

Counsel for Plaintiff sent an e - mail to April Parrish indicating the attempts to contact her. Also, said counsel stated that despite his efforts, Ms. Parrish had not made any attempts to return the calls. Said counsel also stated that based upon his conversation with the staff in the office with Dr. DiPaolo, the impairment rating / restriction information that Ms. Parrish stated had not been received had already been sent to her attention. Said counsel again, requested the impairment rating / restriction information.

Page 5 of 13


Counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to April Parrish again pointing out that he had contacted Dr.DiPaolo and based upon conversations with her office, the impairment rating / restriction information had already been sent.

April Parrish sent e - mail stating that the April 21st report from Dr.DiPaolo stated "no medium or heavy laboring." However, Monsanto needed additional information to determine whether Plaintiff could be accommodated.

Counsel for Plaintiff sent a follow up e - mail asking what needs to be done in order to secure "such" information?

Plaintiff s counsel received a certain e - mail that had an attachment which was a copy of the report from Dr.DiPaolo.

Counsel for Plaintiff received an e - mail from Ms. Parrish stating that she would continue efforts to follow up with Dr. DiPaolo.

Counsel for Plaintiff sent an e - mail to Ms. Parrish to let her know that he had contacted Dr. DiPaolo's office, and based upon the conversations with "that office", the issue appeared to be the 14 page document that she requested to be completed? Said counsel asked whether the 14 page document could be streamlined?

Counsel for Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Ms. Parrish.

Counsel for Plaintiff sent e - mail to Ms. Parrish to verify whether she received the demand letter. The e - mail also requested a response to the demand as well as a separate question as to whether a response from Dr. DiPaolo had been received?

Counsel for Plaintiff sent a copy of the Petition To Controvert to Ms. Parrish.

Counsel for Plaintiff received letter from Phillip Embry stating that his firm had been retained to represent employer / insurer.

Counsel for Plaintiff received a letter from Phillip Embry acknowledging that Plaintiff sustained a "compensable injury." The letter also acknowledged that Plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement as of April 21, 2014 and that the disability rating was 50%.

Page 6 of 13


July 4,3024:

July 8, 2014:

July 8, 2014;

August 7, 2014:

August 12, 2014:

August 25, 2014:

September 5, 2014:

September 5, 2014:

September 17, 2014:

September 18, 2014:

September 18, 2014:

September 22, 2014:

Counsel for Plaintiff received from Mr. Embry, a copy of a letter that was addressed to Dr. DiPaolo telling her that he was in receipt of the March 24th report where she opined that Plaintiff could do no medium nor heavy laboring. However, Mr. Embry stated that employer needed additional information as to whether Plaintiffs permanent injuries were related to the November 14, 2013 incident?

Counsel for Plaintiff sent e - mail to Phillip Embry stating that Plaintiff had been advised that his 401 ( k) benefits could not be released because he was still employed? However, employer continued to refuse to allow Plaintiff to resume his employment. Said counsel also mentioned that Plaintiff had not received any benefits / income since April.

Counsel for Plaintiff received e - mail from Mr. Embry stating he would discuss same with employer and advise.

Counsel for Plaintiff reached out to Mr. Embry via e - mail attempting to follow up to see whether there had been any contact with employer.

Counsel for Plaintiff received an e - mail from Mr. Embry that stating that a certain "questionnaire" had been placed on the desk of Dr. DiPaolo.

Counsel for Plaintiff received an e - mail from Mr. Embry stating that a nurse manager had been assigned to the file. Mr. Embry also stated that a FCE had been ordered by Dr. DiPaolo.

Counsel for Plaintiff received letter from Mr. Embry that was addressed to River City Rehabilitation regarding the scheduling of the FCE.

Counsel for Plaintiff received a letter from Sedgwick that stated that the services of the nurse case manager were over.

Counsel for Plaintiff called Phillip Embry but left voice message.

Counsel for Plaintiff called Phillip Embry to get the status of the FCE, but Mr. Embry indicated that he had not received the FCE.

Counsel for Plaintiff received a copy of an e - mail that was sent to the adjuster from Mr. Embry.

Counsel for Plaintiff received letter from Dr. DiPaolo that contained the results from the FCE.

Page 7 of 13


September 26, 2014:

September 29, 2014:

October 2, 2014:

October 2, 2014:

October 7, 2014:

October 14, 2014:

October 16, 2014:

October 22, 2014:

October 24, 2014:

November io, 2014:

November 10, 2014:

November 11, 2014:

November u, 2014:

November u, 2014:

Counsel for Plaintiff contacted Phillip Embry to get a status and he was advised that "the adjuster" did not have the FCE results. Counsel for Plaintiff contacted River City Rehabilitation and was advised that the FCE results were sent the next day after the exam. Said counsel contacted Phillip Embry and advised what was learned after speaking with River City Rehabilitation.

Counsel for Plaintiff sent copy of the FCE to Mr. Embry.


Counsel for Plaintiff received e - mail from Mr. Embry that contained an opinion from Dr. DiPaolo.



Counsel for Plaintiff participated in e - mail conversations with Phillip Embry regarding waiting for employer to discuss Plaintiffs work restrictions.

Counsel for Plaintiff called Phillip Embry to follow up on conversations with employer regarding Plaintiffs restrictions. Said counsel was advised that it would be November 7th before employer could discuss restrictions.

Counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to Mr. Embry requesting his good faith compliance with discovery. The letter addressed the concerns in terms of Plaintiff obtaining access to his 401 ( k ) funds as well as a reminder that Plaintiff had not received any income since April.

Counsel for Plaintiff received e - mail from Mr. Embry stating that employer did in have the "November 7th" meeting and that employer would contact Plaintiff.

Counsel for Plaintiff called Phillip Embry but left voice mail.

Counsel for Plaintiff called Phillip Embry but left voice mail.

Counsel for Plaintiff sent an e - mail to Mr. Embry stating that he could advise what the outcome of Plaintiffs employment status.

Counsel for Plaintiff received call from Phillip Embry but he stated that he could not tell counsel for Plaintiff the outcome of the meeting with employer regarding Plaintiff s work restrictions and continued employment.

Page 8 of 13


* November u, 2014: Counsel for Plaintiff sent letter to Mr. Embry expressing his disgust with Mr. Embry's failure to disclose the outcome of the employer's November 7th meeting.

* November 11, 2014: Counsel for Plaintiff spoke with Phillip Embry and expressed frustration with not being advised of the outcome of employer's meeting, when it was Mr. Embry who represented that a meeting would take place November 7th and after "that" meeting, there would be a decision regarding restrictions / continued employment.

* November 12, 2014: Counsel for Plaintiff was contacted by Phillip Embry and was advised that Plaintiff would not be allowed to return to work.

COUNT NUMBER 1 - CLAIM FOR POLICY BENEFITS

19. That Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegation ( s ) set forth in paragraphs


20. That Plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement on or about April 21, 2014. However,

when Plaintiff attempted to return to work, he was denied access and advised that he could only return to

said employment WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. Plaintiff avers that Defendant Monsanto has refused to hire

and / or reinstate him.

21. That Plaintiff avers that Defendants have consistently failed to promptly investigate and

adjust ths claim that serves as the basis for the instant civil action.

22. That Plaintiff avers that as a result of the serious and debilitating injuries that he sustained,

he has not been able to earn any income since the date of the accident and has further suffered wage loss

since November 14, 2013.

23. That Plaintiff avers that he will likely continue to suffer wage loss in the future.

24. That Plaintiff performed all of the conditions for coverage set forth in the afore refrenced

mentioned policy giving Defendants due notice and proof of disability and loss wages; and have also

demanded payments for hospital bills and loss wages. Despite these demands, Defendants have failed and

/ or refused to pay such benefits which are now due and remain unpaid, all to, the damage of the Plaintiff

in the amount of said benefits together with interest thereon.

Page 9 of 13


COUNT NUMBER 2 - CLAIM FOR BAD FAITH FAILURE TO PAY BENEFITS


through 24.

26. That at all times relevant, Defendants have wrongfully and in bad faith withheld benefits

due to Plaintiff under the policy of insurance mentioned above. Such bad faith was and is manifested by

the following conduct:

a. The Defendants have refused to pay the benefit ( s ) knowing that the claim to be wholly

valid; that the benefit ( s ) were and are justly due under the term ( s ) of the policy; and

that the Plaintiff is financially and emotionally distressed by reason of the disability,

illness, wage loss and the Defendants' failure to promptly investigate / and or adjust the

claim and the Defendants' failure to pay benefits;

b. The Defendants, with knowledge of medical reports, confirming the Plaintiff s illness

during the described period, nevertheless contends without probable cause, and with no

legitimate or arguable reason, that the Plaintiff is not entitled to said benefits;

c. The Defendants have deprived the Plaintiff of benefits justly due him when the

Defendants knew that those benefits were needed by Plaintiff and his family;

d. The Defendants have failed to provide promptly or at all a reasonable explanation of the

basis for failing to promptly adjust and / or investigate the claim and

e. The Defendants have failed to provide for adequate claim (s ) handling personnel and

procedures to effectively and appropriately respond to Plaintiff s claims.

COUNT NUMBER 3 - DECLARATORY ACTION


through 26.

28. That Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration from the Court that benefits are covered under the

terms of the policy of insurance referenced herein above.

Page 10 of 13


COUNT NUMBER 4 - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DEFENDANTS

29. That Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs x

through 28.

30. That Defendants have a contractual duty to pay, investigate and adjust the claims at issue

pursuant to the afore referenced policy of insurance.

31. That by failing to pay the claims at issue in these premises, Defendants have breached the

contract.

COUNT NUMBER 5 - BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BY DEFENDANTS


through 31.

33. That all insurance contracts contain an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

34. That Defendants owe Plaintiff a duty of good faith and fair dealing.

35. That Defendants have breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing by unjustifiably

refusing to investigate, adjust and pay Plaintiff s claims pursuant to the afore referenced insurance policy.

36. That Defendants' actions are tortuous and malicious in nature and is without a legitimate or

arguable basis.

37. That Defendants' tortuous breach of their duties of good faith and fair dealing is the

proximate cause of damages suffered by Plaintiff, which include but are not limited to contractual damages

and consequential damages.

38. That Defendants' actions in these premises rises to the level of bad faith and / or tortuous

breach of contract, and as such, warrant the imposition of punitive damages, all costs of litigation and an

award of attorney's fees incurred in these premises.

Page n of 13


COUNT NUMBER 6 - FAILURE TO PROMPTLY INVESTIGATE THE CLAIM BY DEFENDANTS



40. That Defendants assumed the investigation of the claim.

41. That Defendants had a duty to fully, fairly, adequately and correctly investigate and adjust

Plaintiffs claim.

42. That Defendants breached this duty by failing to adequately investigate and adjust Plaintiffs

claim.

43. That Defendants' tortuous breach of their duties to promptly investigate is the proximate

cause of damages suffered by Plaintiff, which include but are not limited to contractual damages and

consequential damages.

COUNT NUMBER 7 - NEGLIGENCE / GROSS NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS



45. That Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to act with reasonable care.

46. That Defendants' actions have been willful, wanton and with reckless disregard of Plaintiff s

rights so as to constitute gross negligence.

47. That Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of its attorney's fees and an award of punitive

damages.

COUNT NUMBER 8 - CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES



Page 12 of 13


49- That the course of conduct perpetrated by Defendants described herein was deliberately

undertaken, was wanton, willful and in reckless disregard of the rights and well - being of Plaintiff, and was

attended by malice and vindictiveness on the part of Defendants, and by reason thereof, Plaintiff requests

that a jury be permitted to determine the appropriateness of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff demands judgment of, from and against

Defendants as follows:

a. A judgment requiring Defendants to pay the sum of all benefits due in an amount to be

determined, together with interest from November 14, 2013;

b. A judgment for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the jury and

c. A judgment for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES E. MOORE, PLAINTIFF

BRANbotfl DOfeE¥,-MSB-rioo29i ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

-- OF COUNSEL: -.....

BRANDON I. DORSEY, PLLC POST OFFICE BOX 13427 JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39236 - 3427 TELEPHONE: (601) 969 - 6960 FACSIMILE: ( 601) 969 - 6959

Page 13 of 13


Documents

MOORE v. MONSANTO COMPANY et al complaint