Amended Complaint - Insurance Coverage Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

may be served with process by serving any officer, a managing or general agent, or any otheragent authorized by appointment or by law to receive process for this Defendant at the aboveaddress.12. Defendant Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., is a Florida professional association with itsprincipal place of business at 36474 Emerald Coast Parkway, Suite 4202, Destin, Florida 32550and who may be served with process by serving any officer, a managing or general agent, or anyother agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive process for this Defendant at theabove address.13. Defendant Nutt & McAlister, PLLC, is a Mississippi professional limitedliabilitycompany with its principal place of business at 605 Crescent Boulevard, Suite 200, Ridgeland,Mississippi 39157 and who may be served with process by serving any officer, a managing orgeneral agent or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive process for thisDefendant at the above address.IV. FACTSThe facts of this case show reprehensible conduct by the Defendants.THE AGREEMENT14. In November 2005, Plaintiff Jones, Funderburg, Sessums, Peterson & Lee,PLLC, a law firm, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement, a copy of which is attached heretoand incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit A. It should be noted that Paul Benton withdrewbefore the group began substantial work.15. Specifically, Jones and Funderburg had represented Defendants Scruggs and ScruggsPage 4 of 25
Law Firm in collateral litigation since August, 2004; and Defendant Scruggs approached Jonesin October, 2005, to perform similar tasks for SKG, resulting in Jones’s immediate preparationof the initial legal brief that became the template for all insurance litigation initiated by SKGfollowing Hurricane Katrina .16. The only profit-sharing or fee allocation percentage decided upon was a thirtyfivepercent (35%) share to Defendant Nutt & McAlister in exchange for financing the JointVenture. Plaintiff commenced intensive work efforts on behalf of the Joint Venture at this point.17. The agreement was silent as to percentage of fees for all other parties.18. The agreement is absolutely void as a result of acts of the Defendant in Januaryand February, 2007 as well as acts from March to November of 2007 wherein actions by theDefendants singularly or in concert with actual knowledge or with constructive knowledgeattempted to influence the outcome of this litigation and, therefore, the only arrangement amongthe Defendants is a joint venture under the applicable laws of the State of Mississippi exceptthose acts specifically alleged against various Defendants.THE PLAINTIFF’S WORK19. From October 2005 until March 2007, Plaintiff logged substantial work for theSKG thereby foregoing other available legal work.20. Plaintiff’s senior partner Jones devoted approximately ninety-five percent (95%)of his available work time to the Joint Venture.21. Jones was assisted by his partners Stewart Lee and Steve Funderburg whorespectively devoted approximately fifty percent (50%) of their time to the Joint Venture at therequest of Jones.Page 5 of 25
Page 1: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAFAYETTE C
Page 6 and 7: 22. Plaintiff’s work and performa
Page 8: Plaintiff’s right to arbitration.
Page 11: 55. Jones and Funderburg asked for
Page 14 and 15: paid by State Farm for settlement o
Page 16 and 17: 90. This conduct is set forth in at
Page 18 and 19: elation to its business.106. Defend
Page 21 and 22: 135. Defendants, as partners, are c
Page 23 and 24: action of some of the Defendants an
Page 25: 165. The Plaintiff demands all fore

Amended Complaint - Insurance Coverage Blog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?