Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00051-JJF

Document 5

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WAR
B.F. RICH CO., INC.,
)

Plaintiff,
v.

CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) )
)

C.A. No. 07-51 (JJF)

) ) )

ANSWER
1.

Admitted.

2.

Denied as stated. Admitted that the defendant is a corporation of the State

of New Jersey, with headquarers at 466 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017.
Admitted, too, that the defendant is qualified with the Insurance Commissioner of the

State of Delaware to engage in the business of entering into contracts of insurance,
including workers' compensation coverages.
3.

Admitted that the parties are of diverse citizenship and that the Cour has

in personam jurisdiction over the defendant. The remaining averments of this paragraph
are denied.

4.
5.

Admitted.

Admitted upon information and belief.

.\330531 vI

Case 1:07-cv-00051-JJF

Document 5

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 2 of 10

6.

Denied as stated. Admitted that the defendant engages in the business of

entering into contracts of insurance, including workers' compensation coverages

applicable to employees in the State of

Delaware.

7.

Denied as stated. Admitted that Clarendon National Insurance Company

Workers Compensation and Employers Liabilty Insurance Policy No. CNBM0037-02
insured an entity called "Chariot Management, Inc." during a policy period of 1 % 1/2002
to 10/01/2003, which policy speaks for itself.
8.

Denied as stated. Admitted that the provisions of Clarendon policy No.

CNBM0037-02 speak for themselves.
9.

Denied as stated. Admitted that the provisions of Clarendon policy No.

CNBM0037-02 speak for themselves.
10.

Denied as stated. Admitted that Clarendon policy No. CNBM0037-02 has

a Delaware Deductible Endorsement which speaks for itself.
11.

Denied as stated. Admitted that Clarendon policy No. CNBM0037-02 has

a Delaware Deductible Endorsement which speaks for itself.
12.

Denied as stated. Admitted that Clarendon policy No. CNBM0037-02 has

a Delaware Deductible Endorsement which speaks for itself.
13.

Denied as stated. Admitted that Clarendon policy No. CNBM0037-02 has

a Delaware Deductible Endorsement which speaks for itself.
14.

Denied as stated. Admitted that PNC Bank issued a Letter of Credit in

favor of the defendant.
15.

Denied as stated. Admitted that WSFS issued a Letter of Credit in favor

of the defendant.

.\330531 vI

2

Case 1:07-cv-00051-JJF

Document 5

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 3 of 10

16.

Admitted that Francis Winsley, an employee of

the plaintiff at its Newark,

Delaware plant, asserted a workers' compensation claim following a workplace incident
on September 10, 2003. Defendant is without knowledge or information suffcient to

admit the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph.
17.
Admitted that Francis Winsley, an employee of

the plaintiff at its Newark,

Delaware plant, asserted a workers' compensation claim following a workplace incident
on September 10, 2003. Defendant is without knowledge or information suffcient to

admit the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph.
18.

Admitted upon information and belief, except that the RSKCo. claim

number was 900519288.

19.

Denied.

20. 21.

Denied.
Denied as stated. Admitted that investigation found that Wins

ley had

made prior insurance claims.
22. 23.

Denied.

Denied.

24.

Denied as stated. Admitted that the Winsley claim fie was transferred
December 23,2003.

from RSKCo. to NARS effective as of

25.

Denied as stated. Admitted that there was communication between BF

Rich Co. and NARS which reflected the plaintiffs concern about the initial response to
the Wins

ley claim.

26.

Denied as stated. Admitted that sureilance on Wins

ley depicted him

indulging in activity that could be interpreted, depending on many factors, either as not

.\330531 vI

3

Case 1:07-cv-00051-JJF

Document 5

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 4 of 10

inconsistent with or inconsistent with the scope of the physical restrictions that had been
imposed on him.

27.

Denied as stated. Admitted that an independent medical exam by Dr.

Spieker in March 2004 characterized Winsley as being capable of performing certain

work, but with physical restrictions, and requested a fuctional capacity exam to fuher
define the potential scope of futue work.
28.

Denied as stated. Admitted that the plaintiff required Winsley to submit to

a "Fit for Duty" evaluation before it would allow him back into its plant, thus delaying
his return until May 27,2004.
29.

The defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit the

truth of the averments of this paragraph.
30.

The defendant is without knowledge or information suffcient to admit the

truth of the averments of this paragraph.
31.

The defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit the

truth of the averments of this paragraph.
32.

Denied as stated. Admitted that an attorney representing B.F. Rich Co.

fied with the Delaware Industrial Accident Board, in approximately September 2004, a
Petition for Review of Wins

ley's entitlement to receive fuher worker's compensation

benefits.
33.
Denied as stated. Admitted that, in March 2005, Winsley's attorney and

counsel representing Winsley's employer negotiated and concluded an agreement to settle
all remaining features of the former's worker's compensation claim, including

permanency and future medical expenses, for a lump sum of$12,500.00.

.\330531vl

4

Case 1:07-cv-00051-JJF

Document 5

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 5 of 10

34.
35.

Denied.

Defendant reasserts its answers to paragraphs 1-34 above as if specifically

set forth herein.
36. 37. 38. 39.

Admitted.

Admitted.
Denied.

Admitted.

40.

The defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit the

truth of the averments of this paragraph.
41.

The defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit the

truth of the averments of this paragraph.
42. 43.

Denied.

Denied as stated. Admitted that the defendant urged the plaintiff to

reimburse it for worker's compensation payments made under Clarendon policy No.
CNBM0037-02 and, as a featue of this process, reminded the plaintiff of Clarendon's
rights under the applicable Letter of Credit.

44.

Denied as stated. Admitted that the plaintiff had outside counsel contact

the defendant in an effort to avoid a draw on the Letter of Credit.
45.

Denied as stated. Admitted that, in the context of the plaintiffs effort to

avoid a draw on the Letter of Credit, the defendant provided the plaintiff with
information relating to the Wins

ley fie.

46.

The defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit the

truth of the averments of this paragraph.

.\330531vl

5

Case 1:07-cv-00051-JJF

Document 5

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 6 of 10

47.
48.

Denied.

Denied as stated. Admitted that the plaintiffs outside counsel requested

certain CD-ROMs containing Winsley claim-related information.

49.

Denied as stated. Admitted that plaintiff s outside counsel was advised

that certain information would not be provided to him, and that among the reasons for

non-disclosure was a concern that the release of certain information might violate the
law.
50.

Denied as stated. Admitted that, on May 25, 2006, Clarendon issued a

sight draft to WSFS Bank with respect to the Letter of Credit.
51.

Denied as stated. Admitted that, at certain points during communications

between plaintiffs outside counsel and Clarendon, the defendant agreed to delay drawing
on the Letter of Credit.
52.

Denied as stated. Admitted that, at certain points during communications

between plaintiffs outside counsel and Clarendon, the defendant indicated that it would
exercise its rights under the Letter of Credit.
53.

Denied as stated. Admitted that, in June 2006, the plaintiff reimbursed the

defendant for certain of Clarendon's payments to Winsley on behalf of B.F. Rich Co.
COUNT I
54.

Defendant reasserts its answers to paragraphs 1-53 above as if specifically

set forth herein.
55.

To the extent that this paragraph's asserts a legal conclusion it requires no

response. To the extent that an answer is required, the averments of this paragraph are

denied.

.\330531vl

6

Case 1:07-cv-00051-JJF

Document 5

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 7 of 10

56.

To the extent that this paragraph's asserts a legal conclusion it requires no

response. To the extent that an answer is required, the averments of this paragraph are

denied.
57. 58.

Denied. Denied.
COUNT II

59.

Defendant reasserts its answers to paragraphs 1-58 above as if specifically

set forth herein.
60.

Denied as stated. Admitted that Clarendon policy No. CNBM0037-02

speaks for itself.
61.

Denied as stated. Admitted that Clarendon policy No. CNBM0037-02

speaks for itself.
62. 63.

Denied.

Denied as stated. Admitted that Clarendon policy No. CNBM0037-02

speaks for itself.
64. 65.

a.-h.

Denied.

Denied.

COUNT III
66.

Defendant reasserts its answers to paragraphs 1-65 above as if specifically

set forth herein.
67.

Denied as stated. Admitted that Clarendon policy No. CNBM0037-02

speaks for itself.
68.

Denied.

.\330531 vI

7

Case 1:07-cv-00051-JJF

Document 5

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 8 of 10

69. 70.

Denied. Denied.
COUNT iv

71.

Defendant reasserts its answers to paragraphs 1-70 above as if specifically

set forth herein.
72.

Denied as stated. Admitted that Clarendon policy No. CNBM0037-02

speaks for itself.
73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

Denied. Denied.
Denied. Denied.

Denied.

AFFIRATIVE DEFENSES
1.

Plaintiffs various causes of action fail to state claims upon which relief

can be granted.

2.

All or some of plaintiff s claims are bared by the applicable statute of

limitations.
3.

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

4.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to bar all of plaintiffs claims by

virte of a determination by the Delaware Fraud Prevention Bureau of the Office of the

Insurance Commissioner of

the State of

Delaware.

WHEREFORE, defendant demands judgment in its favor and that the Complaint
be dismissed with costs taxed against plaintiff.
.\330531vl

8

Case 1:07-cv-00051-JJF

Document 5

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 9 of 10

PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.

DATED: March 30, 2007

.\330531 vI

9

Case 1:07-cv-00051-JJF

Document 5

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March, 30, 2007, I electronically fied the ANSWER with the Clerk of Cour using CM/CF which wil send notification of such filing(s) to the following:
Kimberly L. Gattuso, Esquire Saul Ewing LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1200 P.O. Box 1266 Wilmington, DE 19899-1266

ç;~ M... if
PAUL M. LUKOFF (LD. No. 96) DAVID E. BRAND (LD. No. 201) Prickett, Jones & Ellott, P.A. 1310 King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 888-6500

.\330531 vI