arrow left
arrow right
  • Heather Kirchoff, Scott Kirchoff v. Jeff BurgessCC - Civil Collection document preview
  • Heather Kirchoff, Scott Kirchoff v. Jeff BurgessCC - Civil Collection document preview
  • Heather Kirchoff, Scott Kirchoff v. Jeff BurgessCC - Civil Collection document preview
  • Heather Kirchoff, Scott Kirchoff v. Jeff BurgessCC - Civil Collection document preview
  • Heather Kirchoff, Scott Kirchoff v. Jeff BurgessCC - Civil Collection document preview
  • Heather Kirchoff, Scott Kirchoff v. Jeff BurgessCC - Civil Collection document preview
  • Heather Kirchoff, Scott Kirchoff v. Jeff BurgessCC - Civil Collection document preview
  • Heather Kirchoff, Scott Kirchoff v. Jeff BurgessCC - Civil Collection document preview
						
                                

Preview

Filed: 9/12/2023 2:56 PM Knox Circuit Court Knox County, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA IN THE KNOX CIRCUIT COURT )ss VINCENNES, INDIANA COUNTY OF KNOX ) CAUSE NO: 42C01-2308-CC-000271 SCOTT KIRCHOFF and HEATHER KIRCHOFF, Plaintiffs, v. JEFF BURGESS d/b/a BURGESS CONSTRUCTION, Defendant. ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW, Defendant JEFF BURGESS d/b/a BURGESS CONSTRUCTION, by counsel, and for their Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint states the following: General Allegation: 1 The Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 1 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 2. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 2 of the Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 3 of the Plaintiff's Complaint. 4 The Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 4 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore denies the same. . 5. The Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 5 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 6. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff's Complaint. Count 1—Breach of Contract 7. The Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to paragraphs one through 7 of the Plaintiff's Complaint as though set forth verbatim herein. 8. The Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 8 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 9. The Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 9 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 10. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 10 of the Plaintiff's Complaint. 11. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 11 of the Plaintiff's Complaint. 12. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 12 of the Plaintiff's Complaint. Count II—Negligence 13. The Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to paragraphs one through 13 of the Plaintiff's Complaint as though set forth verbatim herein. 14, The Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 14 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 15. The Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a beliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 15 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 16. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 16 of the Plaintiff's Complaint. 17. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 17 of the Plaintiff's Complaint. 18. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 18 of the Plaintiff's Complaint. Count I1I—Fraud 19. The Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to paragraphs one through 19 of the Plaintiff's Complaint as though set forth verbatim herein. 20. The Defendant moves to Dismiss Count III, paragraphs 20-25, as it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Trial Rule 12(B)(6). The Motion to Dismiss is filed contemporaneously with this Answer. Defendant denies any rhetorical paragraph not specifically admitted or denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The Defendant JEFF BURGESS d/b/a BURGESS CONSTRUCTION, by counsel, states for their Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1 Plaintiff's claim should be reduced by Plaintiffs comparative fault. 2. Plaintiff's claim is barred because the comparative fault of Plaintiff may exceed fifty percent. 3. The damages of which Plaintiff complains were the proximate result of the risk voluntarily incurred and/or assumed by Plaintiff. 4 Defendant JEFF BURGESS d/b/a BURGESS CONSTRUCTION did not proximately cause Plaintiffs alleged damages, if any. . 5. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate his alleged damages. 6. The damages claimed by Plaintiff were caused in full or in part by non-party, MMI Door, 400 Circle Freeway, Cincinnati, OH 45246 and Bender Lumber Corp., 2051 West Fountain Dr., Bloomington, IN 47404 and other persons and/or entities whose identity is unknown at this time. 7. Plaintiffs may have failed to mitigate their damages. 8. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 9. Plaintiffs did not afford Defendant the opportunity to correct. 10. Defendant was not the manufacturer of the allegedly defective product. 11. Defendant reserves the right to add other affirmative defenses as they become known. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by Plaintiffs’ Complaint, for judgment in favor of the Defendant JEFF BURGESS d/b/a BURGESS CONSTRUCTION and against Plaintiffs, and for all other just and proper relief. Respectfully Submitted, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP FIELD LEGAL OFFICES By: Anna Finnerty, #19325-82 Attorney for Defendant, JEFF BURGESS d/b/a BURGESS CONSTRUCTION URY TRIAL REQUEST Pursuant to Trial Rule 38(B) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, the Defendant respectfully demands a trial by jury. erza C Aarecky By: Anna Finnerty CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certified that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all persons listed below, by using the Indiana E-filing system, on this 12th day of September, 2023: Cole L. Kirchoff KKIRCHOFF & JEWEL 517 Broadway P.O. 944 Vincennes, Indiana 47591 erza C Aarecky Anna Finnerty, #19325-82 LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP FIELD LEGAL OFFICES PO Box 6835 Scranton, PA 18505 Phone: 317-582-0438 Fax: 866-200-5771 anna.finnerty@libertymutual.com