MOORE v. MONSANTO COMPANY Et Al Complaint

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 1 of 37 PageID #: 8
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
STATEflE MISS., BOLIVAR COUNTY

CERtipEDftTRUECOpY
" C ' 5f,
VS.
MONSANTO COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN I
Cause Number:
Date Entered
2014-13
Book/Page
PLEADINGS, EXHIBITS,ORDERS FILED,DISPOSITION, ETC.
11/14/2014
BF BAD FAITH Case Filed on 11/14/2014.
11/14/2014
A/R account 2354 created for JAMES E. MOORE.
11/14/2014
Payment Received of $160 For AR Payment Current Balance is $0 Referring Receipt

Number: 102384 Received by:
11/14/2014
CIVIL COVER SHEET, COMPLAINT (FILED) (SUMMONS ISSUED AND HAND

GIVEN TO ATTY)
11/17/2014
Judge SMITH, III ALBERT B. assigned.
11/17/2014
CIVIL COVER SHEET EMAILED TO MS. REBECCA FOR JUDGE ASSIGNMENT
11/17/2014
LETTER OF ASSIGNMENT (SENT TO ATTORNEY OF RECORD)
11/18/2014
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR BAD FAITH AND DAMAGES (JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED) (FILED) ("FILED" STAMPED COPY RETURNED TO ATTY)
12/11/2014
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 SELFADDRESSED STAMPED (EXPRESS MAIL) ENVELOPE ON 12/11/2014.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Page 1 of 1
Civil Case Filing Form
(To be completed by Attorney/Party V

Prior to Filing of Pleading)
Mississippi Supreme Court
Form AOC/Ol
(Rev 2009)
Administrative Office of Courts

In the
mm
eb
County # Judicial
Court ID
District
Origin of (iit (Place an "X" in one box only)

Initial Filing
Reinstated
Remanded
Reopened
Local Docket ID
I| i|Date
H M Year
'HV1
Month
1onth
^hisareaJoê_comjet^_b^_clerj^
Court of
CvTCwyV
ISi
(CH, CI, CO)
'?^V\V^r
Foreign Judgment Enrolled

Joining Suit/Action
Case Number if filed prior to 1/1/94

County
1S*-
Judicial District
Transfer from Other court

Appeal
| | Other
Plaintiff - Party(ies) Initially Bringing Suit Should Be Entered First - Enter Additional Plaintiffs on Separate Form
Individual
QK~&--
/V\q
E.
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 Individu al Planitiff is acting in capacity as Business Owner/Operator (d/b/a) or State Agency, and enter entity:
D/B/A or Agency
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 In dividual Filing:
Defendant - Name of Defendant - Enter Additional Defendants on Separate Form
Individual
Last Name
First Name
Maiden Name, if applicable
Check (x) if Individua l Defendant is acting in capacity as Executor(trix) or Administrator(trix) of an Estate, and enter style:
Estate of
M.I.
Jr/Sr/lll/IV
Check (x) if Individu al 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
1AI-3
Enter legal name of Business, corporation, partnership, agency - If Corp oration, 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
Attorney (Name & Address) - If Known

Damages Sought:
MS Bar No.
Compensatory $
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
Nature of Suit (Place an "X" in one box only)

Domestic Relations
|
Business/Commercial
Accounting (Business)
Child Custody/Visitation
.
Child Support
Business Dissolution
Debt Collection
Contempt
Employment
Divorce:Fault
Foreign Judgment
Divorce: Irreconcilable Diff.
Garnishment
Domestic Abuse
Replevin
Emancipation
Other
Modification
Paternity
Probate
Accounting (Probate)
Property Division
Birth Certificate Correction
Separate Maintenance
Termination of Parental Rights
Commitment
Conservatorship
UIFSA (eff 7/1/97; formerly URESA)
Guardianship
Other
Heirship
Appeals
|
Intestate Estate
Administrative Agency
Minor's Settlement
County Court
Muniment of Title
Hardship Petition (Driver License)
Name Change
Justice Court
Testate Estate
MS Dept Employment Security
Will Contest
Worker's Compensation
Other
Other
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
|J=*1
n
n
0r
CI
- Contested
Adoption
Adoption - Uncontested
Consent
Minor
Removal toof Abortion
Other Minority
Civil Rights
Real Property
Adverse Possession
Ejectment
Eminent Domain
Eviction
Judicial Foreclosure
Lien Assertion
Partition
Tax Sale: Confirm/Cancel
Title Boundary or Easement
Other
,
Torts
Bad Fa ith
Fraud
Loss of Consortium
Malpractice - Legal
Malpractice - Medical
Mass Tort
Negligence - General
Negligence - Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
Subrogation
Wrongful Death
Other
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Elections
Expungement
Corpus
Habeas
Post Conviction Relief/Prisoner
Other
|
1 Breach ofContract
w
InstallmentContract
n
Insurance Contract
Specific Performance
n
Other
|
i BondStatutes/Rules
n
Validation
Civil Forfeiture
n
.
Declaratory Judgment
Injunction or Restraining Order
Other
j
j
j
1
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 TH
ROUGH 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 h

t rough 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 h

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 h
t rough 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 - 3of 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, P laintiff, 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
27.
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
29.
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
32.
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
43.
That Defendants' tortuous breach of their duties to promptly investigate is the proximate
claim.
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
44.

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
48.
number 1 rough
th
47.
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
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39236 - 4
327
TELEPHONE: ( 601) 969 -6960
FACSIMILE: ( 601) 969 -6959
Page 8of 8
EXHIBIT A

(
JAMES E. MOORE
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

DAVID HORTON; JOHN DOE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS i THROUGH 10
AND JOHN DOE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 1THROUGH 10
DEFENDANTS
SUMMONS
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
[kJ
of 2014.
MARILYN L. KE LLY, CLjSRK

CIRCUIT COURT?
BiR&FJUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
BY:
$
si
D.C.
PLAINTIFF
JAMES E. MOORE
VS.
CrVTL ACTION NUMBER

DAVID HORTON; JOHN DOE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS 1THROUGH 10
AND JOHN DOE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 10
2DH-I3
DEFENDANTS
SUMMONS
COUNTY OF BOLIVAR
TO:
ACE American Insurance Company

c / o Insurance Commissioner Of Mississippi
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT
Damages With Discovery Attached to BRANDON I. DORSEY, BRANDON I. DORSEY, PLLC, POST OFFICE BOX
ges or adjudgment by default will be entered against you for the money or other relief demanded in the Complaint For Bad Fa ith
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&SD.C.
BY:
<&D
tt#
PLAINTIFF
JAMES E. MOORE
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
^0/

DEFENDANTS
SUMMONS
COUNTY OF BOLIVAR
TO:
Indemnity Insurance Company Of North America

c / o Insurance Commissioner Of Mississippi
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT
You are required to mail or hand - deliver a copy of a written response to the Complaint For Bad Fait h And
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^>
of 2014.
MARILYN L. KEL LY, CLERK

CIRCUIT COURT OF THEi?iRSiF:T0MCIAL DISTRICT OF
PLAINTIFF
JAMES E. MOORE
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

DEFENDANTS
SUMMONS
COUNTY OF BOLIVAR
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

BOLIVAR COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
JAMES E. MOORE
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

DEFENDANTS
SUMMONS
COUNTY OF BOLIVAR
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
of 2014.
MARILYN L. KEL LY, CLERK

BOLIVAR COUNTy^SIÊ|

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
In the matter of:
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CIRCUIT COURT CONVENES
CIRCUIT CLERK
BOLIVAR COUNTY
FIRST MONDAY IN MAY

FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER
P.O. BOX 670
CLEVELAND, MS 387 32
PH: 662-843-2061
PH: 662-846-2943
"
Cause No. 201 4-_T_lJZ _

U
f'
-Versus-
A
s~(jjur\
\AJULt~(th^
od[
LETTER OF ASSIGNMENT
TAKE NOTICE that the above styled and numbered cause has been assigned to Circuit Court
Judge:
CEW
CHARLES E. WEBSTER
P.O. BOX 998
Clarksdale, MS 38614
JEW
ABS
TOHNNTF. WA TJS
P.O. Box 548
Cleveland, MS 38732
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
, D.C.
ss&wew'S" " *'
ÎSSJL
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff (s):
1.
(ZT^J<-CMj
Attoniey(s) for DfeMtift(s):
7>IL<L
J?2? -2VZ1

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 a bove numbered cause shall initiate and complete all
discovery authorized by the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure on or before onehundred 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 c opy 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
20/^.
day of~i

\
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT

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 ofdismissal 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

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 discoverymaterials, and theproblems 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 beserved 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
No. 89-R-990I5-SCT
IN RE: LOCAL RULES
FEB o 2 200
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 1Required 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 tr ue certified copy hereof to West Publishing
Company for publication as soon as practical in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter, Second
Series (Mississippi Edition).
SO ORDERED, this the
day of January, 200A
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.

(
(
JAMES E. MOORE
VS.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

DAVID HORTON; JOHN DOE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS x THROUGH 10
2014 -13
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
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, Fl owood, 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 h

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 hrough

t
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 - 3of 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:
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?
July 8, 2014:
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.
July 8, 2014;
Counsel for Plaintiff received e - mail from Mr. Embry stating he

would discuss same with employer and advise.
August 7, 2014:
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.
August 12, 2014:
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.
August 25, 2014:
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.
September 5, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff received letter from Mr. Embry that was
addressed to River City Rehabilitation regarding the scheduling
of the FCE.
September 5, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff received a letter from Sedgwick that stated

that the services of the nurse case manager were over.
September 17, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff called Phillip Embry but left voice message.
September 18, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff called Phillip Embry to get the status of the
FCE, but Mr. Embry indicated that he had not received the FCE.
September 18, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff received a copy of an e - mail that was sent

to the adjuster from Mr. Embry.
September 22, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff received letter from Dr. DiPaolo that

contained the results from the FCE.
Page 7 of 13
September 26, 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.
September 29, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff sent copy of the FCE to Mr. Embry.
October 2, 2014:
October 2, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff received e - mail from Mr. Embry that

contained an opinion from Dr. DiPaolo.
October 7, 2014:
October 14, 2014:
October 16, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff participated in e - mail conversations with

Phillip Embry regarding waiting for employer to discuss Plaintiffs
work restrictions.
October 22, 2014:
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.
October 24, 2014:
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.
November io, 2014:
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.
November 10, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff called Phillip Embry but left voice mail.
November 11, 20 14:
Counsel for Plaintiff called Phillip Embry but left voice mail.
November u, 2014:
Counsel for Plaintiff sent an e - mail to Mr. Embry stating that he

could advise what the outcome of Plaintiffs employment status.
November u, 2014:
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

25.
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 sillness
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
27.
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
32.
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

39.
number 1through 38.

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
43.
That Defendants' tortuous breach of their duties to promptly investigate is the proximate
claim.
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
44.

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
48.
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

JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39236 - 3427
TELEPHONE: (601) 969 - 6960
FACSIMILE: ( 601) 969 - 6959
Page 13 of 13

MOORE v. MONSANTO COMPANY Et Al Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOORE v. MONSANTO COMPANY Et Al Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK-D1

STATEflE MISS., BOLIVAR COUNTY

PLEADINGS, EXHIBITS,ORDERS FILED,DISPOSITION, ETC.

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

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

Payment Received of $160 For AR Payment Current Balance is $0 Referring Receipt

CIVIL COVER SHEET, COMPLAINT (FILED) (SUMMONS ISSUED AND HAND

Judge SMITH, III ALBERT B. assigned.

CIVIL COVER SHEET EMAILED TO MS. REBECCA FOR JUDGE ASSIGNMENT

LETTER OF ASSIGNMENT (SENT TO ATTORNEY OF RECORD)

RECEIVED REQUEST LETTER FROM ATTORNEY (CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 2 of 37 PageID #: 9

Civil Case Filing Form

(To be completed by Attorney/Party V

Administrative Office of Courts

Origin of (iit (Place an "X" in one box only)

(CH, CI, CO)

Foreign Judgment Enrolled

Case Number if filed prior to 1/1/94

Transfer from Other court

Attorney (Name & Address)

Check (x) if Individual Filing Initia l Pleading is NOT an attorney.

Attorney (Name & Address) - If Known

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

Injunction or Restraining Order

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 3 of 37 PageID #: 10

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

MONSANTO COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY;

COMPLAINT FOR BAD FAITH AND DAMAGES

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 4 of 37 PageID #: 11

That John Doe Corporate Defendants 1 h

That John Doe Individual Defendants 1 h

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 5 of 37 PageID #: 12

forth herein above.

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 6 of 37 PageID #: 13

number 1 through 18.

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 7 of 37 PageID #: 14

and emotionally distressed by reason of the disability,

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 8 of 37 PageID #: 15

terms of the policy of insurance referenced herein above.

pursuant to the afore referenced policy of insurance.

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 9 of 37 PageID #: 16

number 1 through 38.

That Defendants assumed the investigation of the claim.

number 1 through 43.

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

rights so as to constitute gross negligence.

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 10 of 37 PageID #: 17

COUNT NUMBER 8 CLAIM

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

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

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 11 of 37 PageID #: 18

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

MONSANTO COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY;

MARILYN L. KE LLY, CLjSRK

Case: 4:14-cv-00177-MPM-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/18/14 12 of 37 PageID #: 19

CrVTL ACTION NUMBER

MONSANTO COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY;

ACE American Insurance Company

MARILYN L. KE LLY, CLERK