(ROSS POOL VS FARM BUREAU, PETITION FOR DAMAGES) 

STATE OF MISSOURI. PULASKI COUNTY
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, MISSOURI
R. ROSS POOL and . TAMMIE POOL,
Plaintiffs
-vs-
FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI,
Defendant
(Serve: Director Division of Insurance Jefferson City, Missouri 65101)
Cause No. CV505-2043CC
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED  Filed Nov. 17 2005
PETITION FOR DAMGES
COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through counsel and for their cause of action .
against Defendant Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri, state as follows:
Common Allegations
1. Plaintiffs R Ross Pool and Tammie Pool are now and were at all times
herein mentioned citizens of the State of Missouri
2. Defendant Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri
is now and was at all times herein mentioned a duly organized and existing Missouri
insurance company engaged in the business of issuing insurance policies to the public for
consideration, and was registered to do business in the State of Missouri.
3. That at all times herein mentioned, Defendant acted both individually and
by and through its agents, servants, and employees, who at all times herein mentioned acted within the course and scope thereof.
4. That at all times herein mentioned, Anthony Breedlove owned and
operated a construction company that did business as Mastercraft Construction; that at all times herein mentioned, Anthony Breedlove acted as the agent, servant and employee of Defendant
5. That at all times herein mentioned Plaintiffs owned maintained and occupied certain real and personal property, including a three bedroom frame dwelling, located at 12494 Eveningshade Road in Plato, Missouri.
6. That on or about the 10th day of February, 2003, a water pipe burst within
a wall separating the main household bathroom and the master bedroom at the aforesaid dwelling; water spilled through the wall, into the attic and across the flooring surface; the center beams supporting the floor joist warped, sagged and displaced; walls in the kitchen and bedroom settled; multiple walls and flooring throughout the house sustained water damage; roof decking warped.
7. That prior to the date of the aforesaid occurrence, Defendant issued to
Plaintiffs a policy of homeown.ers insurance, Policy No. PRO 0041505 05.
8. That the aforesaid homeowners insurance policy provided coverage such that Defendant must pay to Plaintifts all sums which they are legally entitled to recover for damages to the dwelling incurred as a result of the sudden, accidental and direct loss to the aforesaid dwelling and any personal property physically destroyed or to which Plaintiffs lost use. 
9. That the aforesaid homeowners insurance policy was in full force and
effect on the date of the aforesaid occurrence.
10. That at all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs complied with all terms of
the aforesaid homeowners insuance policy.
11. That on or about September 2003, Anthony Breedlove inspected the
aforesaid structural. and water damage at 12494 Eveningshade Road; that Anthony Breedlove was delivered to said site by Mark Fuchs, an employee of Defendant; that Mark Fuchs accompanied Anthony Breedlove through his site inspection of the aforesaid  dwelling.
12. That on or about February 11, 2004 Anthony Breedlove bid on work to
repair water damage at 12494 Eveningshade Road; the bid amounted to $23,471.17.
13. That on or about the week beginning February 23, 2004, Anthony
Breedlove began work at 12494 Eveningshade Rd. 

14. That on or about February 27, 2004, Defendant issued three checks for
repair to aforesaid dwelling; the checks were issued, respectively, in the amounts of $15,688.70, $6,818.77 and $4,584.80; each check was made payable to Plaintiff  R. Ross Pool and "MASTERCRAFT CONSTRUCTION, TONY"; Plaintiff Tammie Pool endorsed said checks and delivered said checks to Anthony Breedlove at the direction of Defendant. 
15. That on or about March 12,2004, Anthony Breedlove quit work at 12494
Eveningshade Road; the work on whieh Anthony Breedlove bid was not complete on said date; as a result thereof, the aforesaid dwelling sustained additional damage and destruction due to the presence of unnatural amounts of water, moisture and mold. 

COUNT I
(Breach of Contract)
COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through coullsel, and for Count I of their cause of
action against Defendant Fann Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri, state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs incorporate hereinafter. as though fully set forth her.ein,
Paragraphs 1 through 15 of Common Allegations.
2. That Defendant did not pay to Plaintiffs the cost to replace the
aforementioned destroyed and damaged pr.operty.
3. That Defendant failed to perform the obligations set forth in the aforesaid
homeowners insurance policy when Defendant refused to pay Plaintiffs the cost to
replace the aforementioned destroyed and damaged property.
4. That the failure of Defendallts to pay Plaintiffs the cost to replace the
aforementioned destroyed and damaged property was without reasonable cause or excuse . 
5. That as a direct result of such failure, water and moisture remained within,
on and about the walls. floors, ceilings and support structure of the dwelling located at
12494 Eveningshade Road; the mold grew in said dwelling as a result of the presence of
water and moisture therein; that said dwelling is not now habitable; that Plaintiff-s have
lost the use and enjoyment said dwelIing and of certain personal property in the dwelling
at the time the aforesaid water pipe burst.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs state that they have been damaged, for which damage
they pray judgment against Defendant Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance
Company of Missouri in such sum as may be fair and reasonable in the premises. but in
excess. of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), together with prejudgment
interest, penalty for vexatious refusal, attorney fees and their costs in this behalf expended.

COUNT II

(Breach of Fiduciarv Duty)
COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for Count 11 of their cause of
action against Defendant Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri,
state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs incorporate hereinafter, as though fully set forth herein,
Paragraphs 1 tluough 15 of Common Allegations.
2. That prior to february 10, 2003, Defendant issued to Plaintiffs a policy of
homeowners insurance, Policy No. PRO 004150505.
3. That the aforesaid homeowners insurance policy provided coverage such
that Defendant must pay to Plaintiffs all sums which they are legally entitled to recover
for damages to the dwelling incurred as a result of the sudden, accidental and direct loss
to the aforesaid dwelling and any personal properly physically destroyed or to which
Plaintiffs lost use.
4. That in retaining the aforesaid insunmce policy, Plaintiffs placed with
Defendant their trust concerning the insurance of 12494 Eveningshade Road and personal 
property maintained in said dwelling.
5. That Defendant did not pay to Plaintiffs the cost to repair said dwelling
and replace certain personal property damaged as a result of the water pipe which burst
on or about February 10, 2003; that Defendant compelled Plaintiffs to retain the services of their agent, Anthony Breedlove, to perform certain repair and remodeling work; that 
Anthony Breedlove did not complete such work; that water and moisture remained
within, on and about the walls, floors, ceilings and support structure of the dwelling
located at 12494 Eveningshade Road; that mold grew in and about said dwelling as a
result of the presence of water and moisture; and, that Defendant did not pay to Plaintiffs
the cost to repair damage resulting to the dwelling and personal property then in the
dwelling due to the presence of mold.
6, That as a direct result of such failure, the dwelling located at 12494
Eveningshade Road is not now habitable and Plaintiffs have lost the use and enjoyment
said dwelling and of certain personal property in the dwelling at the time the aforesaid
water pipe burst.
7. That aforesaid conduct of Defendant demonstrates that Defendant acted
with evil motive and reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs state that they have been damaged, for which damage
they pray judgment against Defendant Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance
Company of Missouri in such sum as may be fair and reasonable in the premises, but in
excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), together with prejudgment.
interest, punitive damages, and their costs in this behalf expended.

 

COUNT III

(Fraud)
COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through Counsel, and for Count III of their cause
of action against Defendant Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of
Missouri, state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs incorporate hereinafter, as though fully set forth herein,
Paragraphs 1 through 15 of Common Allegations, 
2. That at all times herein mentioned, Anthony Breedlove d/b/a Mastercraft
Construction acted as the agent, servant and employee of Defendant; that at an times herein mentioned, Anthony Breedlove acted within the course and scope of his agency for Defendant.
3. That Anthony Breedlove represented to Plaintiffs that he would undertake
certain repair and remodeling work at 12494 Eveningshade Road in exchange for a monetary payment; that Anthony Breedlove made the aforesaid representation with the intent that Plaintiffs would rely upon such representation.
4. That the aforesaid representation was false.
5. That Anthony Breedlove knew the aforesaid representation to be false at
the time the representation was made.
6. That the aforesaid representation was outrageous in that Anthony
Breedlove made such representation with evil motive and reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs.
7. That tbe aforesaid representation was material to Plaintiffs' agreement to
permit Anthony Breedlove to commence certain repair and remodeling work at 12494 Eveningshade Road.
8. That Plaintiffs relied on the aforesaid representation in making the
decision to permit Anthony Breedlove to commence certain repair and remodeling work at 12494 Eveningshade Road and in endorsing and delivering to Anthony Breedlove checks issued by Defendant and made payable to Plaintiff R. Ross Pool and, "MASTERCRAFT CONSTRUCTION. TONY'. 
9. That withln, on and about the walls, floors, ceilings and support structure of the dwelling
located at 12494 Eveningshadc Road; that said dwelling is not now habitable that
Plaintiffs have lost the use and enjoyment sald dwelling and of certain personal property
in the dwelling at the time the aforsaid water pipe burst.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs state that they have been damaged, for which damage
they pray judgment against Defendant Faun Bureau Town & Country lnsurance
Company of Missouri in such sum as may be fair and reasonable in the premises, but in
excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25000.00) together with prejudgment
interest, punitive damages, and their costs in this behalf expended.

 

COUNT IV
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional distress) 
COMES NOW Plaintiff Tammie Pool, by and tbrough counsel, and for Count IV
of her cause of action against Defendant Farm Bureau Town & Country insurance
Company of Missouri. states as follows:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of Common Allegations.
2. That at all times herein mentioned, Anthony Breedlove d/b/a Mastercraft
Construction acted as the agent, servant and employee of Defendant; that at all times
herein mentioned for Defendant.
3. That Anthony Breedlove represented to Plaintiffs that he would undertake
certain repair and remodeling work to repair water damage at 12494 Eveningshade Road. 
4. That on or about February 27,2004, Defendant issued three checks for
repair to aforesaid dwelling; the checks were issued, respectively, in the amounts of $15,688.70, $6,818.77 and $4,584.80; each check was made payable to Plaintiff R. Ross Pool : "MASTERCRAFT CQNSTRUCTION, TONY"; Plaintiff Tammie Pool endorsed said checks and delivered said checks to Anthony Breedlove at the direction of Defendant.
5. That on or about March 12,2004, Anthony Breedlove quit work at 12494
Eveningshade Road"; the work on which Anthony Breedlove bid was not complete on said date; as a result thereof, the aforesaid dwelling sustained additional damage and destrution due to the presence of unnatural amounts of water and moisture that remained in the dwelling after said date.
6. That thereafter, Plaintiff Tammie Pool informed Defendant that Anthony
Breedlove had failed to complete the aforesaid repair and remodeling work; Plaintiff informed Defendant that water and moisture remained withln, on and about the walls, floors, ceilings and support structure of such dwelling; Plaintiff informed Defendant that mold was growing in such dwelling as a result of the presence of said water and moisture; that Plaintiff informed Defendant that 12494 Evening Shade Road was not then habitable and that Plaintiff had lost the use and enjoyment of said dwelling and of certain personal property in the dwelling at the time the aforesaid water pipe burst. 
7. That Defendant did not pay to Plaintiffs the cost to replace the
aforementioned destroyed and damaged property in breach of the aforesaid homeowners insurance policy. 
8. That Defendant then knew, or should have known, that its refusal to pay caused emotional distress. 
9. That Defendant knew or by using ordinary Care could have known of such risk.
10. That as a direct result of such failure, Plaintiff Tammie Pool sustained
medically diagnosable and significant emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tammie Pool states that she has been damaged, for
which damage she prays judgment against Defendant Farm Bureau Town & Country
Insurance Company of Missouri in such sum as may be fair and reasonable in the
premises, but in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), together with
prejudgment interest and her costs in this behalf expended. 
by Thomas J. Casey, Matthew J. Devoti, Matthew C. Casey, Attorneys for Plaintiffs 100 North Broadway, Suite 1000 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 (314) 421-0763
Fax (314) 421-5059

 

(FARM BUREAUS ANSWER TO POOLS PETITION FOR DAMAGES)
FILED FEB 27 2006
STATE OF MISSOURI PULASKl COUNTY 
Cause No. CV505-2043CC
R. ROSS POOL and TAMMIE POOL, )
Plaintiffs,

VS.
FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI,
Defendant.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR DAMAGES
COMES NOW Defendant Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance
Company of Missouri, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to
the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, and states:
Answer to Common Allegations
1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 1, and therefore denies the same.
2. Admit.
3. Denied.
4. Denied.
5. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 5, and therefore denies the same.
6. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 6, and therefore denies the same.
7. Admit.
8. Paragraph number 8 is not a short and plain statement of fact as
required by the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, and is a legal conclusion,
which requires no response from this defendant. Defendant further requests
paragraph 8 be stricken. To the extent Paragraph 8 is deemed a short and
plain statement of fact, it is denied.
9. Defendant admits that the date of the occurrence mentioned in
Plaintiffs' Petition was within the applicable coverage period.
10. Denied.
11. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 11, and therefore denies the same.
12. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 12, and therefore denies the same.
13. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 13, and therefore denies the same.
14. Denied.
15. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 15, and therefore denies the same.
COUNT I (Breach of Contract)
COMES NOW Defendant, by and through undersigned counsel, and for
its Answer to Count I, and states:
1. Defendant incorporates its Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 15 as
if fully set forth herein.
2. Denied.
3. Denied.
4. Denied.
5. Denied.
COUNTll
(Breach of Fiduciarv Duty)
COMES NOW Defendant, by and through undersigned counsel, and for
its Answer to Count II of Plaintiffs' Petition, and states:
1. Defendant incorporates hereinafter, as though fully set forth
herein, its Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 15 of Common Allegations.
2. Admit.
3. Paragraph number 3 is not a short and plain statement of fact as
required by the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, and is a legal conclusion,
which requires no response from this defendant. Defendant further requests
paragraph 3 be stricken. To the extent Paragraph 3 is deemed a short and
plain statement of fact, it is denied.
4. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 4, Count II, and therefore denies the same.
5. Denied.
6. Denied.
7. Denied.
COUNT III (Fraud}
COMES NOW Defendant, by and through undersigned counsel, and for
its Answer to Count III, and states:
1. Defendant incorporates hereinafter, as though fully set forth
herein, its Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 15 of Common Allegations.
2. Denied.
3 .. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 3, and therefore denies the same.
4. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 4, and therefore denies the same.
5. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 5, and therefore denies the same.
6. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 6, and therefore denies the same.
7. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 7, and therefore denies the same.
8. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 8, and therefore denies the same.
9. Denied.

COUNT IV
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
COMES NOW Defendant, by and through undersigned counsel, and for its Answer to Count IV of Plaintiffs' Petition, states:
1. Defendant incorporates hereinafter, as though fully set forth
herein, its Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 15 of Common Allegations.
2. Denied.
3. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 3, and therefore denies the same.
4. Denied.
5. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to fonn a
belief as to the truth of Paragraph 5, and therefore denies the same.
6. Denied.
7. Denied.
8. Denied.
9. Denied.

10. Denied.
WHEREFORE having fully answered and responded to Plaintiffs' Count IV, Defendant prays for dismissal with prejudice, its costs, and any further relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
A For further answer, and by way of affirmative defense, Defendant
states that Plaintiffs' Petition fails to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief may be granted.
B. For further answer, and by way of affirmative defense, Defendant
states that Plaintiffs' failed to mitigate damages.
C. For further answer, and by way of affirmative defense, Defendant
states that if Plaintiffs were damaged as alleged, which is denied, all such damage was caused or contributed to be caused by the fault or negligence of others over whom this Defendant had no control, which should be compared to diminish or bar recovery.
D. In further answer and by way of affIrmative defense, Plaintiffs
failed to comply with all the terms and conditions of the applicable policy of insurance, and, therefore, are not entitled to coverage under the relevant provisions of the applicable policy of insurance; in particular, Plaintiffs did not give immediate written notice of the loss, or the issues relating to the contractor; did not protect the property from further damage, and make necessary and reasonable repairs to protect the property.
E. In further answer and by way of affIrmative defense, Plaintiffs are
not entitled to coverage for their claim for damage to the interior of the insured dwelling because coverage for any such damage is expressly precluded by the applicability and effect of the "neglect of the insured" exclusion of the subject policy of insurance as cited below in pertinent part:

GENERAL EXCLUSIONS - APPLICABLE TO ALL LEVELS OF PROTECTION
We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other causes or events that contribute concurrently or in any other sequence to the loss. 
10. Neglect of any insured to use all reasonable means to protect
covered property at and after the time of loss of when property is
threatened by an insured peril. 
F. For further answer, and as an affirmative defense, Defendant
states that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by accord and satisfaction.
G. For further answer, and for as an affirmative defense, Defendant
states that Plaintiffs' claims for damages based on aggravating
circumstances/punitive damages violates the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America in
the following particulars:
a. Plaintiffs claim for damages based on aggravating circumstances/punitive damages violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America for the following reasons:
i. The Double Jeopardy Clause is violated because multiple awards of damages based on aggravating circumstances/punitive damages can be imposed upon Defendant for the same act or omission and because an award of damages for aggravating circumstances/punitive damages can be imposed upon Defendant> even though Defendant could have been or was convicted or acquitted of a factually related offense in an underlying criminal proceeding.
ii. The Self-Incrimination Clause is violated because Defendant can be compelled to give testimony against itself.
b. Plaintiffs claim for damages for aggravating Circumstances/punitive damages violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America because such damages may be imposed by a less than unanimous jUlY, and based upon a burden of proof applicable in civil cases, whereas damages for aggravating circumstances/punitive damages are a fine or penalty and are quasi-criminal in nature.
c. Plaintiffs claim for damages for aggravating circumstances/punitive damages violates Defendant's right to access to the Courts guaranteed by the Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America because the threat of an award of unlimited damages for aggravating circumstances/punitive damages chills the Defendant's exercise of that right.
d. Plaintiffs claim for damages for aggravating circumstances/punitive damages violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America's guarantee that excessive fmes shall not be imposed.
e. Plaintiffs claim for damages for aggravating circumstances/punitive damages violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America for the follOwing reasons:
1. The standard or test for determining the requisite mental state of the Defendant for imposition of damages for aggravating circumstances/punitive damages is void for vagueness.
ii. Insofar as damages for aggravating . circumstances/punitive damages are not measured against actual injury to the Plaintiff and are left wholly to the discretion of the jury, there is no objective standard that limits the amount of such damages as may be awarded, and the amount of damages for aggravating circumstances/punitive damages that may
be awarded is indeterminate at the time of the Defendant's alleged egregious conduct.
11. In cases involving more than one defendant, the evidence of the net worth of each is admissible, and the jury is permitted to award damages for aggravating circumstances/punitive damages in differing amounts based upon the affluence of a given defendant.
iv. The tests or standards for the imposition of damages for aggravating circumstances/punitive damages differs from state to state such that a specific act or omission of a given defendant mayor may not result in the imposition of such damages, or may result in differing amounts of such damages, depending upon the state in which suit is flied, such that Defendant is denied equal protection of the law.
v. Damages for aggravating circumstances may / punitive damages be imposed without a requisite showing of hatred, spite, ill-will or wrongful motive.
WHEREFORE having fully answered and responded to Plaintiffs' Petition,
Defendant prays for dismissal with prejudice, its costs, and any further relief
this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

Robert L. Brady, #47522 Bradley R. Hansmann #53160 BROWN & JAMES, p.e.
lO lO Market Street, 20th Floor S 1. Louis, Missouri 6310 1 (314) 421-3400
(314) 421-3128 - fax rbrady@bjpc.com bhansmann@bjpc.com
Attorneys for Defendant



(court actions filed in this case)
25th Judicial Circuit (Maries, Phelps, Pulaski & Texas Counties)
25V05052043C - R R POOL ET AL V FARM BUREAU TOWN COUNTRY
This information is provided as a service and is not considered an official court record.
Displaying 1 thru 52 of 52 dockets returned for case 25V05052043C.

11/17/2005 Docket Entry: Petition:
Text: PETITION - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

11/18/2005 Docket Entry: Notice
Text: NOTICE / SUMMONS / WARRANT - FILED BY CLERK

Docket Entry: Summons Issued-Circuit
Text: SERVICE ISSUED: SUMMONS ISSUE DATE: 2005-11-18 ISSUED TO: FARM BUREAU TOWN COUNTRY SERVICE SERVED: PERSONAL SERVICE TO PERSON IN CORP SERVE DATE: 2005-11-30 MEMO TEXT: DESIGNEE

11/30/2005 Docket Entry: Corporation Served
Text: SERVICE ISSUED: SUMMONS ISSUE DATE: 2005-11-18 ISSUED TO: FARM BUREAU TOWN COUNTRY SERVICE SERVED: PERSONAL SERVICE TO PERSON IN CORP SERVE DATE: 2005-11-30 MEMO TEXT: DESIGNEE

12/08/2005 Docket Entry: Memorandum Filed
Text: MEMORANDUM - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: REQ. ALIAS SUMMONS

Docket Entry: Memorandum Filed
Text: MEMORANDUM - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: REQ. ALIAS SUMO

12/12/2005 Docket Entry: Notice
Text: NOTICE / SUMMONS / WARRANT - FILED BY CLERK

Docket Entry: Notice
Text: NOTICE - FILED BY CLERK: NOTICE OF REJECTION OF SERVICE BY DEPT. OF INS.

Docket Entry: Summons Issued-Circuit
Text: SERVICE ISSUED: SUMMONS ISSUE DATE: 2005-12-12 ISSUED TO: DAN CASSIDY SERVICE SERVED: PERSONAL SERVICE TO PERSON IN CORP SERVE DATE: 2006-01-12 MEMO TEXT: ALIAS-SERVED D. MOORE-DESIGNEE

01/12/2006 Docket Entry: Corporation Served
Text: SERVICE ISSUED: SUMMONS ISSUE DATE: 2005-12-12 ISSUED TO: DAN CASSIDY SERVICE SERVED: PERSONAL SERVICE TO PERSON IN CORP SERVE DATE: 2006-01-12 MEMO TEXT: ALIAS-SERVED D. MOORE-DESIGNEE

02/06/2006 Docket Entry: Notice of Court Hearing Sent
Text: NOTICE OF HEARING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Docket Entry: Motion for Change of Venue
Text: MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

02/27/2006 Docket Entry: Answer Filed
Text: ANSWER - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Docket Entry: Suggestions Filed
Text: SUGGESTIONS - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: IN SUPPORT OF DEF'S MOTIONS

Docket Entry: Motion Filed
Text: MOTION - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: MOTION FOR JUDG. ON PLEADINGS: COU NT II

Docket Entry: Motion Filed
Text: MOTION - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: MOTION FOR JUDG. ON PLEADINGS: COU NT III

Docket Entry: Motion Filed
Text: MOTION - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: MOTION FOR JUDG. ON PLEADINGS: COU NT IV

03/08/2006 Docket Entry: Request Filed
Text: REQUEST - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND

03/10/2006 Docket Entry: Response Filed
Text: RESPONSE - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: RES. TO REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAN D

04/21/2006 Docket Entry: Reply
Text: REPLY - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR R ULE 51.03 CHANGE OF VENUE

04/24/2006 Docket Entry: Notice of Court Hearing Sent
Text: NOTICE OF HEARING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

05/15/2006 Docket Entry: Cert Serv of Interrog Filed
Text: CERTIF. OF SERVICE/INTERROGATORIES - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Docket Entry: Certificate of Service
Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

06/05/2006 Docket Entry: Suggestions Filed
Text: SUGGESTIONS - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: IN SUPPORT OF DEF'S APPLICATION FO R CHANGE OF VENUE

06/07/2006 Docket Entry: Motion Hearing Held
Text: MINUTES: Motions for Change of Venue and all other motions noticed up by the parties to be heard on June 29, 2006 at 9:00 am.

06/12/2006 Docket Entry: Notice
Text: NOTICE / SUMMONS / WARRANT - FILED BY CLERK

Docket Entry: Notice of Court Hearing Sent
Text: NOTICE OF HEARING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Docket Entry: Suggestions Filed
Text: SUGGESTIONS - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO DEF'S FOR JUDG. ON THE PLEADINGS ON COU NTS II, III, AND IV

06/22/2006 Docket Entry: Notice of Court Hearing Sent
Text: NOTICE OF HEARING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

06/26/2006 Docket Entry: Certificate of Mailing
Text: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Docket Entry: Certificate of Mailing
Text: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

06/29/2006 Docket Entry: Motion Hearing Held

06/30/2006 Docket Entry: Suggestions Filed
Text: SUGGESTIONS - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: IN SUPPORT OF DEF'S APPLICATION FO R CHANGE OF VENUE

Docket Entry: Motion Hearing Held

Docket Entry: Change of Venue
Text: CHANGE OF VENUE

07/14/2006 Docket Entry: Entry of Appearance Filed
Text: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Docket Entry: Notice
Text: NOTICE FOR TRIAL SETTING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Docket Entry: Certificate of Mailing
Text: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Docket Entry: Certificate of Mailing
Text: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Docket Entry: Jury Trial Scheduled

Docket Entry: Jury Trial Scheduled

07/26/2006 Docket Entry: Certificate of Mailing
Text: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

08/21/2006 Docket Entry: Filing:
Text: RETURN RECEIPT CARD - FILED BY CLERK: RECEIPT OF FILE IN PHELPS COUNTY

09/21/2006 Docket Entry: Certificate of Mailing
Text: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

10/06/2006 Docket Entry: Notice to Take Deposition
Text: NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

10/23/2006 Docket Entry: Notice to Take Deposition
Text: NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

11/09/2006 Docket Entry: Notice to Take Deposition
Text: NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: AMENDED

12/06/2006 Docket Entry: Certificate of Mailing
Text: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

01/09/2007 Docket Entry: Certificate of Mailing
Text: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING - FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

01/31/2007 Docket Entry: Certificate of Mailing
Filing Party: SMITH, TYCE STUART

03/28/2007 Docket Entry: Notice to Take Deposition
Text: Amended Notice
Filing Party: DEVOTI, MATTHEW JOSEPH

04/09/2007 Docket Entry: Notice to Take Deposition
Text: Second Amended
Filing Party: LOWE, KIMBERLY FAITH

Displaying 1 thru 52 of 52 dockets returned for case 25V05052043C.