Here's a copy of the Aiken pretrial order. - Insurance Coverage Blog
Here's a copy of the Aiken pretrial order. - Insurance Coverage Blog
Here's a copy of the Aiken pretrial order. - Insurance Coverage Blog
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
For Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. and James W. Jordan, P.E., S.E.<br />
David A. Ward Jr. 10003 Woodloch Forest Dr., 281-362-7728<br />
Suite 100<br />
The Woodlands, TX 77380<br />
James C. Simpson, Jr. 2310 19 th Street 228-863-6534<br />
Gulfport, MS 39501<br />
3. The pleadings are amended to conform with this <strong>pretrial</strong> <strong>order</strong>.<br />
4. The following claims, including claims stated in <strong>the</strong> complaint, have been filed:<br />
Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendants for breach <strong>of</strong> insurance contract, bad faith, punitive<br />
damages and fraud.<br />
Plaintiffs’ claim for policy limits, plus dwelling replacement costs provision <strong>of</strong> an<br />
additional 25% <strong>of</strong> dwelling limits, for damage to <strong>the</strong>ir house, appurtenant structures,<br />
contents, and additional living expenses.<br />
Plaintiffs’ claim <strong>of</strong> conspiracy between USAA Casualty <strong>Insurance</strong> Company (“USAA<br />
CIC”) and Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. and Rimkus’ employee James W. Jordan, P.E.<br />
Plaintiffs’ claims for emotional distress damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and<br />
expenses, and prejudgment interest.<br />
USAA CIC maintains its answers and defenses asserted in answer to <strong>the</strong> Complaint,<br />
including USAA CIC’s due process and constitutional defenses to Plaintiffs’ claim for<br />
punitive damages.<br />
Defendants Rimkus and Jordan maintain <strong>the</strong>ir answers and defenses asserted in its<br />
answers to <strong>the</strong> Complaint, including <strong>the</strong>ir due process and constitutional defenses to<br />
Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.<br />
5. The basis for <strong>the</strong> court’s jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity <strong>of</strong> citizenship<br />
between <strong>the</strong> parties and an amount in controversy in excess <strong>of</strong> $75,000.00 exclusive <strong>of</strong><br />
interest and costs.)<br />
6. There is <strong>the</strong> following jurisdictional question:<br />
NONE.<br />
-2-