Preview
JUSTIN JORDAN,
VOPAK NORTH AMERICA INC., HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S
ARKEMA, INC.,
EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS VOPAK TERMINAL DEER PARK INC. AND VOPAK NORTH
AMERICA INC.’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
Defendants Vopak Terminal Deer Park Inc. and Vopak North America Inc. d/b/a Vopak
Americas (“Vopak”) file their First Amended Answer to the Petition filed by Justin Jordan.
(“Plaintiff”) as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Vopak generally denies
each and every, all and singular, the material allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Petition and
requests that this Court require Plaintiff to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence
as is required by the laws of the State of Texas.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Subject to and without waving the foregoing General Denial, Vopak asserts,
pursuant to Rule 94 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following affirmative defenses
which, singly or in combination, bar Plaintiff’s right to recover, in whole or in part, the damages
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the exclusive remedy provision
of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Tex. Lab. Code §408.001
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the exclusive remedy provision
of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 USC §
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the borrowed-servant doctrine.
Plaintiff’s claims are barre
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by doctrine of collateral estoppel
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by res judicata or claim preclusion.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of proportionate
er 33 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff failed to mitigate
his damages.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the contributing, concurring,
comparative, intervening, and/or superseding negligence or fault of persons or entities other than
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any injury, the existence
of which is denied, was caused by third-parties’ own acts, omissions, fault, or lack of action,
including, but not limited to, Emission Monitoring Service, Inc
Plaintiff’s claims for exemplary damages are barred, in whole or in part, by
§41.008 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
2
Pleading further, and by way of affirmative defense, Vopak asserts that under
§41.008 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, any award of exemplary damages is subject
to the cap specified in that statute. Thus, any award of exemplary damages in excess of that cap
must be reduced accordingly.
WHEREFORE, Vopak prays that Plaintiff take nothing by reason of this suit, and that his
claims be dismissed with prejudice. Vopak also prays that it recover its costs of court, attorneys’
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William A. Moss
Christopher L. Dodson
State Bar No. 24050519
William A. Moss
State Bar No. 24078041
Email:
Email: Will.Moss@bracewell.com
TTORNEY S FOR EFENDANTS
ERMINAL EER
MERICA
MERICAS
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been forwarded
rocedure December 6, 2018.
William A. Moss
4
Preview
JUSTIN JORDAN, VOPAK NORTH AMERICA INC., HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S ARKEMA, INC., EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS VOPAK TERMINAL DEER PARK INC. AND VOPAK NORTH AMERICA INC.’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER Defendants Vopak Terminal Deer Park Inc. and Vopak North America Inc. d/b/a Vopak Americas (“Vopak”) file their First Amended Answer to the Petition filed by Justin Jordan. (“Plaintiff”) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Vopak generally denies each and every, all and singular, the material allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Petition and requests that this Court require Plaintiff to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence as is required by the laws of the State of Texas. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Subject to and without waving the foregoing General Denial, Vopak asserts, pursuant to Rule 94 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following affirmative defenses which, singly or in combination, bar Plaintiff’s right to recover, in whole or in part, the damages Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Tex. Lab. Code §408.001 Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the exclusive remedy provision of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 USC § Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the borrowed-servant doctrine. Plaintiff’s claims are barre Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by doctrine of collateral estoppel Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by res judicata or claim preclusion. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of proportionate er 33 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the contributing, concurring, comparative, intervening, and/or superseding negligence or fault of persons or entities other than Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any injury, the existence of which is denied, was caused by third-parties’ own acts, omissions, fault, or lack of action, including, but not limited to, Emission Monitoring Service, Inc Plaintiff’s claims for exemplary damages are barred, in whole or in part, by §41.008 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. 2 Pleading further, and by way of affirmative defense, Vopak asserts that under §41.008 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, any award of exemplary damages is subject to the cap specified in that statute. Thus, any award of exemplary damages in excess of that cap must be reduced accordingly. WHEREFORE, Vopak prays that Plaintiff take nothing by reason of this suit, and that his claims be dismissed with prejudice. Vopak also prays that it recover its costs of court, attorneys’ Respectfully submitted, /s/ William A. Moss Christopher L. Dodson State Bar No. 24050519 William A. Moss State Bar No. 24078041 Email: Email: Will.Moss@bracewell.com TTORNEY S FOR EFENDANTS ERMINAL EER MERICA MERICAS 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been forwarded rocedure December 6, 2018. William A. Moss 4