HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Complaint

8/7/2019 HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Complaint

1/23

Case 2:11-cv-00234-EEF-DEK Document 1-1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 23

..r- '? / /",'"ORIGINAL " 0 'C>CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF O R L ~ ~ ~ --:), . ' ,1 T'j.( '_ ...).

NO. (0 - (/ " {J ' '\(' , .DIVISION " / I ;' , ,I \l t'\ STATE OF LOUISIANAI d L{\3>

HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES, INC. ANDGARDEN DISTRICT HOTEL ON ST. CHARLES AVENUE, LLC _rL_VERSUS

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, D E INVESTMENTS,INC. d/b/ a SERVPRO OF NORTH KENNER, HARAHAN AND LAKEVIEW, andSEW AGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS

FILED:________ _DEPUTY CLERK

PETITION FOR DAMAGES

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Plaintiffs, GARDENDISTRICT HOTEL ON ST, CHARLES AVENUE, LLC, a domestic limited liabilitycompany capable of suing and being sued and HOSPITATILITY ENTERPRISES, INC., a

domestic corporation, capable of suing and being sued, both entities domiciled in theParish of Orleans State of Louisiana who aver as follows' D ~ L E tl. 4Tf..INSI ". .r:! . (..Clrt}T

1.Made Defendants, jointly and in solido, are:

CIVIL COURTS BUILOING..' ii1 v ~ HEll L E ~ N . s f LA '(1112, 'I)

DATE: 1211312010 at 15H2(a) WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURAN@E'COMPPrNY ~ h l ! r e i n a f t e r RECIPW 2 5 7 2 ~ 8 PRICE PAIDreferred to at times as "WESTCHESTER") is now, and at all times relevant to this actionwas, a foreign insurer, authorized to do and doing b u s i n e s f f I N ~ ; ~ A 8 ' i i L o u i s . ~ ~ a ; . , JSC

(b) D E INVESTMENTS, INC. d/b/a S E R V P R o , ~ 9 t I i ~ ~ ~ t H K 1 B ~ R , 1)).!)0 $ 10.00 $HARAHAN AND LAKEVIEW (hereinafter referred t q q T ~ ! f ~ E i l 2 1 ) i ' 9 . . ~ p r o t

.;. roT- H'l6. 'JOdomestic corporation, organized under the laws of the S t a ~ l 9 . ~ ~ H i ~ I ) . w , h i c h lists its 1)1 \' . I)Cprincipal place of business with the Louisiana S e c r e t a r Y : ~ t ~ ~ ~ = : ! ~ = , f u , ~ J ; ' M i ~ h = 9 f !: ,On)Ouachita, State of Louisiana but with its principal place of business in fact located in the

Parish 9f Jefferson, State of Louisiana; and(c) SEWAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS, (hereinafter

EXHIBIT

eAl

0.000.000.01)

I A Psrry ,A. Sre!erk \ \ )0 l


2/23


sometimes referred to' as "SWB"), a domestic body corporate created by statute, la . RS. 33:4071 et seq., with the attributes of a corporation and capable of suing and beingsued, with its principal place of business in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.

2.At all times pertinent hereto, Westchester held out a Commercial Property Policy

(policy number 036082653 003) with additional coverages, including bu t not limited towater damages, sprinkler .leakage, building damages, business personal property andother losses listed in the policy, in favor of Plaintiffs, Garden District Hotel on St.Charles Avenue, LLC and Hospitality Enterprises, Inc., in full force and effect,providing coverage to Plaintiffs, under the terms and conditions of which itcontractually agreed to indemnify Plaintiffs for the losses and damages asserted herein.Plaintiffs allege all coverages listed in the policy identified herein as if copied in extenso.

3.On or about January 7, 2010, the sprinkler system at the Garden District Hotel

located at 2203 st. Charles Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana (hereinafter referred to asthe "Hotel"), malfunctioned, causing sprinkler leakage and water damages to thebuilding, ceilings walls, floors, contents, equipment, supplies, materials, and other itemsof the Hotel.

4.Plaintiffs sustained extensive damages to the Hotel and are entitled to additional

sums for loss of use and other reimbursable damages at the insured premises. AlthoughWestchester inspected the property and eventually made payment for Plaintiffs' losses,Plaintiffs have received inadequate compensation from Westchester, their insurer.

5.Plaintiffs provided timely notice of the loss. On or about January 7, 2010,

Plaintiffs contacted their agent Eustis to report the subject incident. Upon informationand belief, Eustis reported the incident to Westchester that evening. On January 8, 2010,a formal claim was initiated under the subject policy.

2


3/23


6.

On January 11, 2010, Westchester informed Plaintiffs that it had retained EngleMartin to adjust the claim.

7.

On January 14, 2010, Engle Martin's adjuster inspected the premises anddetermined that there were extensive damages caused by sprinkler leakage.

8.

On Januar y 19, 2010, Westchester caused ano ther adjus ter to inspect the Hotel forthe purported purpose of doing a formal appraisal of damages. This adjustercompleted his work the same day and said he would report his findings to Westchesterthe following week.

9.Upon information an d belief, Westchester's second representative did not

complete his work in a timely fashion, an d Westchester delayed completion of theadjusting process and failed to make any payment on Plaintiffs' insured loss for manymonths.

10.During the inspections, both claims representatives questioned Plaintiffs'

representatives about issues that falsely impli ed coverage issues whe re none existed.11.

On February 11, 2010 a representative of Westchester telephoned Plaintiffs'representative and informed her that a letter would be sent, stating that Westchesterwas reserving its rights to contest coverage and claiming that coverage was notestablished for Plaintiffs' claim.

12.No reservation of rights letter was ever sent, and Plaintiffs never received any

communication from Westchester indicating that coverage was disputed.

3


4/23


13.For the sole purpose of avoiding and delaying payment and other unfair

settlement advantages, from February 11, 2010 until September 2010, Westchestercontinued to claim that it needed further documentation of central station water flowalarm monitoring before it could make any payment on Plaintiffs' claim.

14.Plaintiffs' policy provides for a CENTRAL STATION WATER FLOW ALARM.

However, exclusions related to the alarm apply solely to fire losses and not to thedamages sustained by Plaintiffs.

15.Plaintiffs' policy contained a Vacancy Permit for which Plaintiff paid an

additional premium.16.

By virtue of the Vacancy Permit, no exclusions claimed by Westchester appliedto Plaintiffs' claims for water damage s from sprinkler leakage.

17.At all pertinent times between February 11, 2010 and September 29, 2010,

Westchester and its representatives misrepresented policy provisions and the scope ofinsurance coverage for the sole purpose of avoiding and/or delaying rightful paymentof Plaintiffs' claims.

18.Defendant Westchester had Notice and Proof of Loss of Plaintiffs' claims at least

by January 19, 2010 and despite repeated demand for payment, unjustifiably refused tomake any payment to Plaintiffs until September 29, 2010, when it tendered the sum of$108,339.70.

19.The sum paid by Westchester was grossly inadequate to compensate Plaintiffs

for losses sustained at the hotel.4


5/23


6/23


delays allowed of notification of the loss.26.

La. RS. 22:1973, (fonnerly RS. 22:1220) provides that an insurer "owes to hisinsured a duty of good faith and fair dealing," and provides that the insurer "has anaffinnative duty to adjust claims fairly and promptly, and to make a reasonable offer tosettle claims with the insured." The statute further provides that "any insurer whobreaches these duties shall be liable for any damages sustained as a result of thebreach."

27.La. RS. 22:1973 further provides that an insurer who breaches their duties is liable

for, in addition to any general or special damages, a penalty equal to the greater of twotimes the damages sustained or $5,000.00.

28.Pursuant to La. RS. 22:1892 & 1973, Westchester is obligated to pay Plaintiffs the

amount of actual damages sustained, plus a penalty of two times the actual damagessustain ed by Plaintiff.

29.Westchester has wrongfully failed to pay all sums due on the claims submitted by

Plaintiffs, or, alternatively, wrongfully constructively denied the claim within the timeprovisions established by La. RS. 22:1892 and La. RS. 22:1973. In so doing, Westchesterhas breached the express terms and conditions of the Commercial Propert y Policy andhas otherwise denied Plaintiffs the insurance coverage promised by Westchester in amanner that has been arbitrary, capricious and withou t probable cause.

30.Further, Westchester has acted without reasonable basis or justification and in

contravention of their duty of good faith and fair dealing in handling Plaintiffs' claims,

namely:a. It has unreasonably and intentionally refused to pay benefits to which

6


7/23


Plaintiffs are entitled under the terms of the Commercial Property InsurancePolicy;

b. It has unreasonably and intentionally delayed payments to which Plaintiffsare entitled under the terms of the Commercial Property Insurance Policy;

c. It has intentionally failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the claimreasonably based on all available information, to reasonably evaluate andreview the information, and to make reasonable and timely efforts to settlethe claims;

d. It has no reliable knowledge or information upon which to substantiate aconstructive denial of Plaintiffs' claims;

e. The methodology used by Westchester to determine plaintiffs' losses iscontrary and offensive to "public policy" in Louisiana; and

f. It has not accounted for the increased costs of labor, services, raw materials,and other construction necessities due to economic conditions in thegeographic location of the Gulf Coast Region following recent catastrophicevents in their property loss calculations, despite coverage provided in theCommercial Property Policy for "replacement costs."

31.Westchester acted with actual knowledge or with reckless disregard of the lack

of a reasonable basis in denying the claims, delaying full payment of all portions of theclaim, failing to make reasonable attempts to settle all portions of the claim, and/orfailing to conduct a reasonable investigation into all portions of the claim and failing toreasonably evaluate the available information.

32.Westchester, through its agents, contractors and others for wh ich it is responsible

committed the following non-exclusive unfair settlement practices enumerated in LRS22:1214, all of which give rise to liability under LRS 22:1892 and 22:1973, to wit:

(a) Misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to7


8/23


coverages at issue;(b) Failed to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications

with respect to claims arising unde r insurance policies;(c) Failed to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based

upon all available information;(d) Failed to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after

proof of loss statements have been completed;(e) Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable

settlements of Plaintiffs' claim after liability became reasonably clear;(f) Compelling Plaintiffs to institute litigation to recover amounts due under

their insurance policy by ignoring obvious damages and tendering anunreasonable sum as "full payment";

(g) Failed to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in theinsurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claimor for t he offer of a compromise settlement;

(h) Other unfair settlement practices enumerated within 22:1214 learned inDiscovery.

33.As a direct result of Westchester's bad- faith conduct and unfair settlement

practices, Plaintiffs have suffered compensatory damages in an amount not yetascertained, and will continue to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, lostbusiness opportunities and income, other business losses associated with unfairpayment and delay in payment, consequential damages and any costs and attorneys'fees that may be incu rred in maintaining this action.

34.Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Westchester all losses, including costs and

attorney's fees, caused by Westchester's breach of contract and state law.

8


9/23


35.Westchester intentionally breached its duty of good faith owed to Plaintiffs

under La. RS. 22:1973.36.

Pursuant to La. RS. 22:1892, Westchester is obligated to pay Plaintiff propercoverage under the Commercial Property Policy, plus a penalty of 50% of the amountdue, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

37.La.RS. 22:1973 pro vides that an insurer "owes to his insured a duty of good faith

an d fair dealing" an d provides that he insurer "has an affirmative duty to adjust claimsfairly and promptly, and to make a reasonable offer to settle claims with the insured."The statute further provides that "any insurer who breaches these duties shall be liablefor any damages sustained as a result of the breach."

38.La. RS. 22:1973 specifically provides among the actions breaching the insurer's

duties set forth above are:a. "Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to

any coverages at issue," orb. "Failing to pay the amount of any claim due any person insured by the

contract within sixty days after receipt of satisfactory proof of loss fromthe claimant when such failure is arbitrary, capricious, or withoutprobabl e cause." La. RS.22:1973.

39.The statute further provides that an insurer who breaches this duty is liable for,

in addition to any general or special damages, a penalty equal to the greater of twotimes the damages sustained or $5,000.00.

40.Pursuant to La. RS. 22:1973, Westchester is obligated to pay Plaintiffs the

9

C


10/23


amount of actual damages sustained, plus a penalty of two times the actual damagessustained by Plaintiffs.

COUNT II. CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCEAGAINSTD E INVESTMENTS, INC. (SERVPRO)

41.Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference all of the allegations in the

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.42.

On January 8, 2010, less than 24 hours after the subject incident, Plaintiffs'representatives contracted with Servpro to remediate all water damages caused by theJanuary 7, 2010 sprinkler leakage. Servpro, through its agents, employees and othersfor whom it is responsible, commenced work that date and worked through about noonon January 9, 2010.

43.Despite undertaking the obligation to properly remediate the damages, Servpro

committed the following acts and/ or omissions of negligence, including, to wit:(a) Failed to properly investigate the damages;(b) Failed to adequately dry all areas of damage;(c) Failed to remove wet carpet and drywall;(d) Failed to use prope r moisture detection methods;(e) Failed to use proper equipment to dry the damages;(f) Made unsui table recommendations to Plaintiff concerning the scope of work

required; and(g) Other acts and omissions of negligence to be adduced at trial.All negligent acts and/or negligent omissions enumerated above occurred in the

Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana and constitute actionable breaches of the contractwith Plaintiffs and Servpro' s obligations ofdue care.

10

C 2 11 00234 EEF DEK D t 1 1 Fil d 02/03/11 P 11 f 23


11/23


44.The negligence of Servpro, its agents, employees and others for whom it is

responsible under respondeat superior and master/servant liability, proximatelycaused and exacerbated damages to the building caused by the January7, 2010 incident.

45.Plaintiffs paid Servpro to make suitable recommendations and to properly

remediate all water damages at the premises of the Hotel in a commercially acceptablemanner, a task which said defendant agreed to undertake and in bad-faith failed toperform under the contract thereby breaching the contract and casting Servpro liableunto Plaintiffs for all compensatory and consequential damages.

46.The allegations made against Servpro arise out of the January 7, 2010 incident,

and the facts, damages, witnesses and evidence inextricably overlap with Plaintiffs'claims against Westchester such that said claims involve a community of interestswhich, for purposes of judicial consistency and economy, should be tried in the sameproceeding.

47.Westchester has made partial payment to Plaintiffs and upon belief and

information may be legally and contractually subrogate d to Plaintiffs' rights against D EInvestments, Inc. for the sum of Westchester's partial payment.

COUNT III. CLAIMS FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST SEWAGE ANDWATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS

48.Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference all allegationsand facts contained

in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.49.

Defendant Sewage and Water Board of New Orleans ("SWB") is a statutorilycreated body corporate charged with constructing, controlling, maintaining, and

11

Case 2:11 cv 00234 EEF DEK Document 1 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 12 of 23


12/23


operating the public water and drainage system of the city of New Orleans under La.R.S. 33:4071.

50.At all pertinent times, SWB controlled, maintained and operated the water and

drainage system s upplying water to the insured premises and owed a duty to Plaintiffsto provide water and drainage services to the insured premises at a reasonable pressureto avoid causing damage to the insured premises.

51.Based on information and belief, defendant SWB through its agents, employees,

representatives, and/or designees negligently failed to monitor and control the waterpressure to the insured premises, causing the sprinkler system to fail resulting insignificant damages to t he Hotel.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Hospitality Enterprises, Inc. and Garden District Hotelon st. Charles Avenue, LLC, demand judgment against Defendants, WESTCHESTERSURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, D E INVESTMENTS, INC., and SEWAGEAND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS, jointly and in solido, for such damages asare reasonable and/or proven at trial, including payment for compensatory damages,consequential damages, statutory penalties, costs, and attorneys' fees, legal interestfrom date of judicial demand and for such further relief as the Court deems just andproper.

Respectfully submitted,

Kir ea nover (BarNo.2 39)Wesley . Barr (Bar No. 32332)400 Poydras Street, Suite 1980New Orleans, LA 70130Telephone: (504) 587-1440Facsimile: (504) 587-1577

61)

Counsel for Plaintiffs. HospitalittjEnterprises, Inc.and Garden District Hotel on St. Otarles Avenue12


13/23



14/23

Case 2:11 cv 00234 EEF DEK Document 1 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 14 of 23TO: COMMISSIONER'INSURANCEP.O. BOX 94214BATON ROUGE, LA 70804

FROM: CLERK OF COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANSRE: R.S. 9.2800.7 REPORTING FORM - PERSONAL INJURY

Section A shaft be obtained by the Clerk of Court at the time suit is filed and submittedto the Commissioner of Insurance within 30 days of filing.Section A shaN be completed at the time Judgment becomes definitive .A. INITIAL INFORMATION1. Caption of Suit: HOSPITALITYENTERPRISES,INC. ET AL

a)c)e)

vs ,WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANYETAL

Parish: ORLEANSJudicial District CDCType Suit11 Auto - Bodily Injury-2. Uninsured Motorist3. -Govemment Uability4. X General Uabllity5. -P roduc ts Uability6 . Redhibition

b) Docket No,: 2010-12413d) Fifing Date: 1211312010

7. Professional Uabitity-a. Medical-b. Legal

c. Architectural-d. Accounting

e. Engineering8. -O t he r

2. Nature of Injuries (If Ascertainable from Petition):

Section B shan be obtained by the Clerk of Court and subrriltted to the CommisSIoner ofInsurance within 30 days of deffnitlve jud gme nt (Section A (1)a - c must also be completed

In order to accurately report.)B. JUDGMENT INFORMATION

1. Judgment by Merit Tna!:a) Judge Juryb) For the Plaintiff For the Oefendant-c) Judgment awarded, ellClusiveof interest and costs:

1. - 0-2. - 0 - but less than $10,0003. $10;000 but less than 525,0004. $25,000 but less than $50,0005. -- ,$50,000 but'less t h a n ~ 1 0 0 , O O O 6. $100,000 but less than $250,0007. $250,000 but less than $500,0008. $500,000 but less than $750,0009. $750,000 but less than $1,000,00010. $1,000,000 but less than $2,000,00011. $2,000,000 or more

2. Appeal Status'a) Appeal Entered b) No Appeal Entered

section C shan be completed by the Clerk of Court and submitted to the Commissioner ofInsurance within 30 days Of dismISSal.

C. DISMISSAL INFORMATION1.2.

Date of DismisSal:WIth Prejudice WIthOut Prejudice

D. A processing fee 01$10.00 shall be taxed as costs of court In each suit onwhlehtheInformation required by this section is submllted by the Clerk of Court. Upon rendering ofjudgment under Section B of this form or dismisSal under Section C ofthls form, $5.00 shan bepaid to the Commissioner of Insurance by the Clerk o f Court and $5.00 shall be retained by theCletk from the court costs paid in SectiorfD.CLERK OR DEPUTY CLERK

CommiSSioner's Copy


15/23


16/23


17/23



18/23

2011 JAN 2' P 3: 112FILED ON BEHALF OF SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS. 'ILGOVERNMENT - PAYS NO COURT COSTS - LA. R.S. 13:4 1... L;I V

NO. 201012413

CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEASTATE OF LOUISIANA

HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES, INC. AND GARDEN DISTRICTHOTEL ON ST. CHARLES AVENUE, LLC

VERSUS

SECTION 7E

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, DE INVESTMENTS,INC. d/b/a SERVPRO OF NORTH KENNER, HARAHAN AND LAKEVIEW,AND SEWAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANSFILED:___________ 2011

DEPUTY CLERK

ANSWER TO PETITION FOR DAMAGESNOW INTO COURT. through undersigned counsel. comes the Sewerage and

Water Board of New Orleans, defendant herein. and in answer to the Petition forDamages, avers the following, to-wit:

1.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 1of the Petition are admitted as to thestatus of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans.

2.

The allegations contained in Paragraphs 2 through 48 of the Petition forDamages. as they apply to the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, are deniedfor lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.

3.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 49 of the Petition are admitted as to thestatus of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans.

4.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of the Petition are denied for lack ofsufficient informat ion to justify a bel ief therein.

5.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the Petition are denied.



19/23

I 'I

FIRST DEFENSEThe Petition fails to state a cause of action .

SECOND DEFENSEThe cause in fact of the damages complained of was the negligence of

plaintiffs. whose negligence should operate as a complete bar or in diminution ofplaintiffs' recovery.

THIRD DEFENSEIn the alternative, defendant affirmatively avers that the plaintiffs' alleged

damages were caused by persons or parties over whom this defendant exercises noauthority. jurisdiction . control. or supervision of whom it is not legally responsible.

FOURTH DEFENSEIn the further alternative. defendant avers that plaintiffs assumed the risk of their

damages.FIFTH DEFENSE

The alleged incident was due solely and entirely to the fau lt and/or negligenceof the plaintiffs. which fault or negligence consists of the following specific acts . each ofwhich amounted to either negligence or fault which was the proximate cause of theincident and of all the damages resulting therefrom:

1. Failing to do what was necessary to avoid the alleged incident;2. Any an d all acts of negligence or fault.

SIXTH DEFENSEIn the alternative. and in the event that this Honorable Court should ffnd that

defendant was guilty of any negligence whatsoever. which proximately caused orcontributed to the incident an d damages which defendant denies, then defendantspecifically pleads contributory negligence of the plaintiffs. which would mitigate anyrecovery by the plaintiffs.

SEVENTH DEFENSEDefendant herein expressly pleads the affirmative defense that the plaintiffs

have failed to mitigate their damages.



20/23

"

EIGHTH DEFENSEDefendant avers that it is entitled to a credit and/or setoff from any sums paid to

or on behalf of plaintiffs by defendant or by any othe r insurer, or by any person or entity,specifically pleading extinguishment of same or all of any obligation which may befound due plaintiffs to the full extent of any such payments.

NINTH DEFENSEDefendant affirmatively asserts the statutory ca p on general damages provided

by LSA-R.S. 13:5106.TENTH DEFENSE

Defendant affirmatively pleads the defense of immunity, as provided byLouisiana law including. but not limited to, sovereign immunity and the immunityprovided by La. R.S. 9:2798.1. La. R.S. 9:2793.1. La. R.S. 9:2795, La. R.S. 9:2800. and La. R.S.9:2800.17.

ELEVENTH DEFENSEDefendant affirmatively pleads the defenses and limit on damages provided in

La. R.S. 5106 and the limit on legal interest provided in La. R.S. 13:5112, as if the statuteshad been copied herein in extenso.

TWELFTH DEFENSEDefendant asserts the defense of immunity as provided by La. R.S. 9:2798.4.WHEREFORE, defendant herein, Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans.

prays that the foregoing Answer, with all affirmative defenses, be deemed good andsufficient, and that after due proceedings are had, there be judgment herein in favor of



21/23

the defendant, Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, and against the plaintiffsdismissing the demands asserted in the Petition for Damages with prejudice at their costand any and all general and equitable relief.

Respectfully submitted...------,/ '1 -- -.H'J(RQLD-D:'MARCHAND, DEPUTY SPEciAL COUNSEL (7543)_SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS625 ST. JOSEPH STREET, ROOM 201NEW ORLEANS, LA 70165504-585-2236504-585-2426 (FAX)GERARD M. VICTOR , SPECIAL COUNSEL

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all

counsel of record in this matter by depositing same in the United States Ma il. postageprepaid and properly addressed to each on the day of -----'=J;;'----'A::.:""=....: . : : : . . . r - " - - i . ~ - I201 1.

HAROJD'D . M A ~ H A N D DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSELS E ~ R A G ! A N D WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS

n:\lit\del\hospitolity ent.. inc\p le\ t 101200nsweLdoc



22/23

lOll Jr.tl 2 \ P 3: ll2FILED ON BEHALF OF SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NE R ~ ~ A N S GOVERNMENT - PAYS NO COURT COSTS -LA. _, 5 ~ r. J 0CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF LEANS

STATE OF LOUISIANANO. 201012413 SECTION 7E

HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET ALVERSUS

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, ET ALFILED:___________ 2011

DEPUTY CLERK ** **

REQUEST FOR NOTICENOW INTO COURT. through undersigned counsel, come s Sewerage and Water

Board of New Orleans who respectfully makes the following request :I.

Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1572, Sewerage and WaterBoard of New Orleans requests written notice ten (10) days in advance of the datefixed for the trial or hearing on any exceptions. motions or rules on the merits of theabove captioned matter.

II.Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 1913 and 1914, Sewerage

and Water Board requests immediate notice of all interlocutory and final orders andjudgments on any excep tions, motions, or rules on the merits of the above captionedmatter.

WHEREFORE, the premises considered. Sewerage and Water Board requests tobe fumished with the above captioned information.

Respectfully submitted,- ~ )

__~ ~ ~ _ - L / ~ ~ = _ ~ __' __________________________- ...HiROLE-D. MARCHAND, DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL (7543)LseWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS625 ST. JOSEPH STREET, ROOM 201NEW ORLEANS, LA 701655045852236 5045852426FAX

GERARD M. VICTOR, SPECIAL COUNSEL


23/23

HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Complaint

Documents

Transcript of HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Complaint