1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA

3
4
5

JACK L. ABEL,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9
10

Vs.
NOBLE & PITTS, INC.;
U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO.;
et al.
Defendants.

11

) Case No.: CV 04-996

)
)
) PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
)
) Judge: Joseph L. Battle
)
)
)
) Date: December 13, 2004
) Time: 9:00 a.m.
) Courtroom: #4
)

12
13
14
15
16
17

Defendant U. S. Specialty Insurance Company (USSIC) hereby submits it Pre-Trial brief in the
above-entitled matter as follows:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I.
INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff was a commercial truck driver and independent owner operator who transported goods for
defendant Noble & Pitts. Prior to being injured in a work related accident, he had taken out a policy of
occupational accident insurance with Defendant USSIC. (or did N&P buy it for him?). After
suffering his injuries, plaintiff sought and received medical and disability benefits pursuant to the policy of
occupational accident insurance. When those were exhausted, he sued defendant Noble & Pitts and
defendant USSIC herein, claiming either direct entitlement to workers compensation benefits, or a
contractual obligation to have such workers compensation benefits purchased for him.
1

Printed on Recycled Paper

O:\FILES\PSI\Piper\Motion_Compel_Further_Resp_Inspec_Dem (Set 2)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pre-Trial Brief

Defendant USSIC should never have been named in this action. Either plaintiff carelessly and

unintentionally plead defendant USSIC into the complaint, or Plaintiff has taken a reckless scatter-shot

approach to see what will stick to whom; Plaintiff seeks to hold someone liable for Workers

Compensation benefits, but clearly plaintiff has no cause of action against defendant USSIC. Defendant

USSIC was never Plaintiffs employer, but was merely the insurance carrier for a policy of Occupational

Accident Insurance with Plaintiff as the named insured. Nor was defendant USSIC a party to any contract

whereby defendant USSIC might be contractually obligated to provide workers compensation benefits.

Assuming plaintiff actually intended to sue defendant USSIC, Plaintiff has not, and cannot state any

cognizable legal claim against USSIC, and has absolutely no facts or legal theory to support its scant and

10

murky claims.

11

II.

12

PLEADINGS STATUS

13
14

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this court on or about April 22, 2004. He alleges two counts: Count

15

I is identified only as a claim for WORKERS COMPENSATION, while COUNT II does not identify or

16

title the cause of action therein. As to defendant USSIC, the Complaint is clearly deficient, and defendant

17

USSIC is assuming that Plaintiff is alleging that defendant USSIC is somehow liable to provide plaintiff

18

with workers compensation benefits. Defendant Noble & Pitts and defendant USSIC herein both filed

19

timely Answers to the Complaint with all appropriate affirmative defenses, and the parties have engaged in

20

both written discovery as well as oral depositions.

21
22

III.

23

FACTS

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff was a commercial truck driver and independent owner operator who transported goods for
defendant Noble & Pitts. Plaintiff applied for, and became the beneficiary of, a policy of Occupational
Accident insurance with defendant USSIC. Plaintiff claimed injury arising from a work-related accident

Printed on Recycled Paper

O:\FILES\PSI\Piper\Motion_Compel_Further_Resp_Inspec_Dem (Set 2)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pre-Trial Brief

on or about May 8, 2002; he claimed injury to his spine and leg as the result of a fall from his truck while

he was tarping a load.

Plaintiff made a claim for benefits with defendant USSIC pursuant to the policy of Occupational

Accident insurance. Subsequently, Plaintiff exhausted his benefits under the insurance policy, having

received 104 weeks of disability benefits and 104 weeks of medical benefits. Defendant USSICs fulfilled

all of its obligations to plaintiff pursuant to the policy of occupational accident insurance, and Plaintiff

does not challenge the amount of benefits paid pursuant to the policy. However, Plaintiff now claims that

he is entitled to workers compensation benefits, although his theory of legal liability against defendant

USSIC appears to be non-existent and confusing at best.

10

IV.

11

ISSUES

12

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendant Noble & Pitts was contractually obligated or,

13

perhaps otherwise legally obligated to provide workers compensation insurance. Although it appears that

14

these same theories may be behind plaintiffs claims against defendant USSIC, the plaintiffs claims are so

15

convoluted and deficient that substantive issues against defendant USSIC have not been well defined.

16

Thus, it is unclear if plaintiff also alleges that he was an employee rather than an independent contractor of

17

any of the defendants.

18
19

In any case, defendant USSIC will prove that neither facts nor law support the recovery of any
workers compensation benefits against defendant USSIC.

20
21

V.

22

LEGAL AUTHORITY

23

Plaintiff has never set forth a legal theory with respect to the purported liability of defendant

24

USSIC to either provide workers compensation insurance or any other theory as to how defendant USSIC

25

can be liable for workers compensation benefits.

26
27
28

Defendant USSIC has cited numerous authorities for the proposition that Plaintiff has failed to state
a cause of action against Defendant USSIC. Nevertheless, should Plaintiff offer a theory of liability based
3

Printed on Recycled Paper

O:\FILES\PSI\Piper\Motion_Compel_Further_Resp_Inspec_Dem (Set 2)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pre-Trial Brief

on ordinary contract principals, Defendant USSIC will demonstrate that no factual or legal basis for such

liability against defendant USSIC can be shown.

3
4

VI.

WITNESSES

6
7

The following witnesses will support defendant USSICs defense of this matter:

1. Plaintiff

2. PMK Noble & Pitts

10

3. PMK USSIC

11
12
13

VII.

14

EXHIBITS

15
16

The following exhibits will be offered to prove defendant USSICs theory of no liability.

17
18

1. Occupational Insurance Coverage Application

19

2. PARTICIPATION REQUEST & APPLICATION

20

3. U.S. Specialty Insurance . . . .GROUP MASTER CERTIFICATE

21

4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OPERATING AGREEMENT AND EQUIPMENT

22

LEASE

23
24
25
26
27
28

Printed on Recycled Paper

O:\FILES\PSI\Piper\Motion_Compel_Further_Resp_Inspec_Dem (Set 2)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pre-Trial Brief

DATED: March 15, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
LANDAU LAW GROUP

2
3
4
5
6

By:

Byron L. Landau
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Printed on Recycled Paper

O:\FILES\PSI\Piper\Motion_Compel_Further_Resp_Inspec_Dem (Set 2)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pre-Trial Brief

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28