Free Answer to Amended Complaint - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01013-SRU

Document 39

Filed 04/13/2004

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MARSHALL AVIATION, LLC Plaintiff VS. AIG AVIATION, INC. and THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendants

: : : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL NO. 303CV1013(SRU)

APRIL 13, 2004

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT: 1. As to paragraph 1, Defendants have insufficient knowledge or information to form

a belief as to Marshall Aviation, LLC's states of organization and principal place of business, and leave Plaintiff to its proof. Defendants do not contest Plaintiff's allegations of jurisdiction or amount in controversy at this time, subject to contrary evidence that may be revealed in discovery. Defendants admit the remaining allegations of paragraph 1. 2. As to paragraph 2, Defendants have insufficient knowledge or information to form

a belief and leave Plaintiff to its proof. 3-4. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are admitted.
1

29 South Main Street



STANGER & A RNOLD, LLP Suite 325 West Hartford, CT 06107 860.561.0650 Juris No. 419042




Facsimile: 860.561.0646

Case 3:03-cv-01013-SRU

Document 39

Filed 04/13/2004

Page 2 of 6

5.

As to paragraph 5, Defendants admit that on or about November 14, 2002, during

the course of routine maintenance being performed on the aircraft, the aircraft was subjected to a reverse polarity condition caused by the flow of electricity in an improper direction. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 5. 6. As to paragraph 6, Defendants admit that Plaintiff notified ICSOP of the damage

to the aircraft through AIG. As to the remaining allegations of paragraph 6, Defendants have insufficient knowledge or information to form a belief and leave Plaintiff to its proof. 7-9. Paragraphs 7 through 9 are denied.

SECOND COUNT: 10-17. Defendants' answers to paragraphs 1 through 8 of the First Count are hereby incorporated and made Defendants' answers to paragraphs 10 through 17 of the Second Count. 18-22. Paragraphs 18 through 22 are denied. THIRD COUNT: 23-30. Defendants' answers to paragraphs 1 through 8 of the First Count are hereby incorporated and made Defendants' answers to paragraphs 23 through 30 of the Third Count. 31-33. Defendants' answers to paragraphs 18 through 20 of the Second Count are hereby incorporated and made Defendants' answers to paragraphs 31 through 33 of the Third Count. 34-35. Paragraphs 34 and 35 are denied.

2

29 South Main Street



STANGER & A RNOLD, LLP Suite 325 West Hartford, CT 06107 860.561.0650 Juris No. 419042




Facsimile: 860.561.0646

Case 3:03-cv-01013-SRU

Document 39

Filed 04/13/2004

Page 3 of 6

FOURTH COUNT: 36-43. Defendants' answers to paragraphs 1 through 8 of the First Count are hereby incorporated and made Defendants' answers to paragraphs 36 through 43 of the Fourth Count. 44-46. Defendants' answers to paragraphs 18 through 20 of the Second Count are hereby incorporated and made Defendants' answers to paragraphs 44 through 46 of the Fourth Count. 47-48. Paragraphs 47 and 48 are denied. 49. All allegations of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint not already specifically

admitted, denied, or otherwise responded to are hereby denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant's CUTPA and CUIPA claims. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims may be barred by doctrines of unclean hands, laches, estoppel, and waiver, and/or any recovery would result in Plaintiff being unjustly enriched. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims may be barred under the doctrine of res judicata.

3

29 South Main Street



STANGER & A RNOLD, LLP Suite 325 West Hartford, CT 06107 860.561.0650 Juris No. 419042




Facsimile: 860.561.0646

Case 3:03-cv-01013-SRU

Document 39

Filed 04/13/2004

Page 4 of 6

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the doctrines of accord and satisfaction, payment, release, and/or discharge. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims may be barred because the damages it alleged to have suffered resulted from its misuse and/or abuse of the subject aircraft. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to mitigate its alleged damages. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. § 42-110a et seq., are barred for lack of a legally cognizable injury. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff lacks standing to bring any claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. § 42-110a et seq., because it has not sustained any injury-in-fact. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages from Defendants, Defendants are entitled to a setoff of any amounts received by Plaintiff from Defendants or others in satisfaction of their claims for alleged damages.

4

29 South Main Street



STANGER & A RNOLD, LLP Suite 325 West Hartford, CT 06107 860.561.0650 Juris No. 419042




Facsimile: 860.561.0646

Case 3:03-cv-01013-SRU

Document 39

Filed 04/13/2004

Page 5 of 6

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff and/or others over whom Defendants had no control may have failed to preserve the subject aircraft, and the subject aircraft's avionics, in their immediate post-incident condition, causing a spoliation of evidence that may irreparably prejudice Defendants in their defense of this case. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants hereby give notice that they intend to rely upon any additional affirmative defenses that become available or apparent and, thus, reserve the right to amend their Answers to assert such additional defenses. DEFENDANTS

BY__________________________ Steven E. Arnold, ct07966 [email protected] Peter Van Dyke, ct24747 [email protected] Stanger & Arnold, LLP 29 South Main Street West Hartford, CT 06107 Tel. (860) 561-0650 Fax. (860) 561-0646 Their Attorneys

5

29 South Main Street



STANGER & A RNOLD, LLP Suite 325 West Hartford, CT 06107 860.561.0650 Juris No. 419042




Facsimile: 860.561.0646

Case 3:03-cv-01013-SRU

Document 39

Filed 04/13/2004

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via facsimile and regular mail to the following counsel of record on April 13, 2004: Robert J. O'Brien, Esq. Jonathan E. Snyder, Esq. Gordon, Muir and Foley, LLP 10 Columbus Boulevard Hartford, CT 06106

Steven E. Arnold

6

29 South Main Street



STANGER & A RNOLD, LLP Suite 325 West Hartford, CT 06107 860.561.0650 Juris No. 419042




Facsimile: 860.561.0646