USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 1 of 16
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`
`ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`LNG INDY, LLC d/b/a,
`KINETREX ENERGY
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-60
`
`Plaintiff, ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND, INC., through its attorney, Stephen
`
`Ellenbecker of Johnson & Bell, Ltd., for its Complaint alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`This is an action for property damage and business losses suffered by Plaintiff due
`
`1.
`
`to a fire that arose as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligent and wrongful conduct
`
`in connection with the promoting, marketing, design, selection, installation, monitoring, warning
`
`in the provision of liquified natural gas (LNG) to Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) at its Parr, IN
`
`grain facility
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1)
`
`2.
`
`because this case is a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
`
`$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between citizens of different States.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is properly set in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) since
`
`Defendant transacts business within this judicial district. Likewise, a substantial part of the events
`
`giving rise to the claim occurred within this judicial district.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 2 of 16
`
`4.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to and consistent with
`
`the Constitutional requirements of Due Process in that Defendant is a domestic limited liability
`
`company in Indiana and maintains its principal place of business in Indiana.
`
`5.
`
`ADM is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago,
`
`Illinois.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant is an Indiana domestic limited liability company with its principal place
`
`of business at 129 East Market Street, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`7.
`
`Defendant is the largest LNG manufacturer in the Midwest region of the United
`
`States.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant markets itself as an entity that provides turn-key LNG systems to
`
`customers.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant’s turn-key LNG systems include mobile storage of LNG, vaporization,
`
`installation and ongoing LNG system operation and monitoring.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant custom designs systems to meet its customers’ specific technical needs.
`
`Defendant then installs the LNG systems with its Field Services Team.
`
`Defendant then claims it provides monitoring of gas flow, storage levels, deliveries,
`
`safety and more 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant represents that its LNG fueling systems feed into customers’ existing
`
`propane lines.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant represents that its LNG fueling systems can be used in grain drying
`
`applications in the Midwest.
`
`15.
`
`LNG is stored at approximately -260 degrees Fahrenheit.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 3 of 16
`
`16.
`
`The LNG, prior to introduction to the customer’s fuel system, needs to be heated
`
`for regasification and to prevent damage to the customer’s fuel system.
`
`17.
`
`Vaporizers are heat exchangers used in LNG systems to ready the LNG for use in
`
`a burner system.
`
`18.
`
`Vaporizers come in different models with different mechanisms to account for the
`
`demands of the application and environment of use.
`
`19.
`
`Ambient air vaporizers are the cheapest models and due to temperature and
`
`environmental conditions in Fall and Winter seasons, are not recommended for LNG systems in
`
`the upper Midwest.
`
`20.
`
`The vaporizer manufacturer from whom Defendant purchased the vaporizer used
`
`at ADM Parr recommended that Kinetrex not use the ambient air vaporizer in this application and
`
`environment.
`
`21.
`
`The style of vaporizer selected by Defendant has a use design point of 70 degrees
`
`Fahrenheit and 70% relative humidity.
`
`22.
`
`This style of vaporizer is designed to be installed vertically permitting airflow as
`
`designed, in an upward direction through the unit.
`
`23. When properly selected and working properly, the gasified LNG product is to leave
`
`the vaporizer at a temperature within 20 degrees of ambient temperature.
`
`24.
`
`At some point before 2019, Defendant attempted to use LNG equipment at ADM,
`
`but it iced over and ADM rejected the equipment.
`
`25.
`
`In or around February 2019, Defendant again approached ADM in an effort to sell
`
`ADM on the idea of switching its fuel at its Parr, Indiana grain drying facility from propane to
`
`LNG.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 4 of 16
`
`26.
`
`At and after this time, Defendant represented that it would provide a turn-key LNG
`
`delivery system on-site at Parr that would meet ADM’s fuel needs for its grain drying operations.
`
`27.
`
` On information and belief, Defendant selected and installed its own piping and
`
`related equipment for connection to the vaporizer at ADM Parr.
`
`28.
`
`At and after this time, Defendant represented that its turn-key system would safely
`
`and effectively accommodate ADM’s existing propane equipment.
`
`29.
`
`On or about October 17, 2019, ADM began drying grain at its Parr facility with
`
`fuel delivered through the LNG system designed, selected, installed and monitored by Defendant.
`
`30.
`
`During a wet harvest season, ADM needed to dry grain daily and depended on
`
`Defendant’s fuel delivery system to dry grain, an integral part of its business.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant knew that ADM relied on its fuel delivery system to carry out its
`
`business at the Parr facility.
`
`32.
`
`On the evening of November 5, 2019, ADM advised Defendant that it was going
`
`to dry grain 24hrs per day due to demand.
`
`33.
`
`At this same time, nighttime temperatures were forecasted to be at or around
`
`freezing.
`
`34.
`
`Prior to this time, Defendant knew its system permitted the discharge of product at
`
`temperatures well below -100 degrees demonstrating the system was not working properly.
`
`35.
`
`By the early morning of November 6, 2019, gas discharge temperatures as
`
`monitored by Defendant, reached temperatures around 130 degrees colder than ambient
`
`temperatures at the time.
`
`36.
`
`By this time, Defendant knew or should have known that the system they selected
`
`was not operating properly.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 5 of 16
`
`37.
`
`Given these gas temperatures, product reaching the ADM grain dryer arrived at
`
`temperatures well below the temperature ratings of ADM’s propane delivery system that were
`
`known by Defendant.
`
`38.
`
`ADM advised Defendant that morning of ice build-up on equipment and asked for
`
`advice.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant gave no warnings and showed no urgency in addressing the situation.
`
`Due for a scheduled 12hr clean-out of the dryer, ADM initiated dryer shutdown
`
`procedures. Unbeknownst to ADM, the gas shut-off system was incapacitated due to deficiencies
`
`in Defendant’s equipment.
`
`41. With fuel still being delivered to the dryer’s burners, the burners did not shut down.
`
`42.
`
`The ongoing burner firing during the shutdown procedures led to an unanticipated
`
`heat build-up in the dryer and an eventual fire.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
` The fire led to destruction of the dryer.
`
`Unable to dry grain, ADM suffered business losses in the form of destroyed
`
`inventory, lost opportunities, lost revenue, transportation charges and missed drying opportunities.
`
`COUNT I
`NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT DESIGN, SELECTION and INSTALLATION OF
`EQUIPMENT)
`
`45.
`
`Defendant is the largest LNG manufacturer in the Midwest region of the United
`
`States.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants markets itself as an entity that provides turn-key LNG systems to
`
`customers.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant’s turn-key LNG systems include mobile storage of LNG, vaporization,
`
`installation and ongoing LNG system operation and monitoring.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 6 of 16
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant custom designs systems to meet its customers’ specific technical needs.
`
`Defendant then installs the LNG systems with its Field Services Team.
`
`Defendant then claims it provides monitoring of gas flow, storage levels, deliveries,
`
`safety and more 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year.
`
`51.
`
`Defendant represents that its LNG fueling systems feed into customers’ existing
`
`propane lines.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant represents that its LNG fueling systems can be used in grain drying
`
`applications in the Midwest.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`LNG is stored at approximately -260 degrees Fahrenheit.
`
`The LNG, prior to introduction to the customer’s fuel system, needs to be heated
`
`for regasification and to prevent damage to the customer’s fuel system.
`
`55.
`
`Vaporizers are heat exchangers used in LNG systems to ready the LNG for use in
`
`a burner system.
`
`56.
`
`Vaporizers come in different models with different heating mechanisms to account
`
`for the demands of the application and environment of use.
`
`57.
`
`Ambient air vaporizers are the cheapest models and due to temperature and
`
`environmental conditions in Fall and Winter seasons, are not recommended for LNG systems in
`
`the upper Midwest.
`
`58.
`
`The vaporizer manufacturer from whom Defendant purchased the vaporizer used
`
`at ADM Parr recommended that Kinetrex not use the ambient air vaporizer in this application and
`
`environment.
`
`59.
`
`The style of vaporizer selected by Defendant is not good at low temperatures the
`
`design point for them is 70 degrees Fahrenheit and 70% relative humidity.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 7 of 16
`
`60.
`
`This style of vaporizer is designed to be installed vertically permitting airflow as
`
`designed, in an upward direction through the unit.
`
`61. When properly selected and working properly, the gasified LNG product is to leave
`
`the vaporizer at a temperature within 20 degrees of ambient temperature.
`
`62.
`
`At some point before 2019, Defendant attempted to trial LNG equipment at ADM,
`
`but it iced over and ADM rejected the equipment.
`
`63.
`
`In or around February 2019, Defendant again approached ADM in an effort to sell
`
`ADM on the idea of switching its fuel at its Parr, Indiana grain drying facility from propane to
`
`LNG.
`
`64.
`
`At and after this time, Defendant represented that it would provide a turn-key LNG
`
`delivery system on-site at Parr that would meet ADM’s fuel needs for its grain drying operations.
`
`65.
`
`At and after this time, Defendant represented that its turn-key system would safely
`
`and effectively accommodate ADM’s existing propane equipment.
`
`66.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant selected and installed its own piping and
`
`related equipment for connection to the vaporizer at ADM Parr.
`
`67.
`
`On or about October 17, 2019, ADM began drying grain at its Parr facility with
`
`fuel delivered through the LNG system designed, selected, installed and monitored by Defendant.
`
`68.
`
`During a wet harvest season, ADM needed to dry grain daily and depended on
`
`Defendant’s fuel delivery system to dry grain, an integral part of its businesss.
`
`69.
`
`Defendant knew that ADM relied on its fuel delivery system to carry out its
`
`business at the Parr facility.
`
`70.
`
`On the evening of November 5 into the morning of November 6, ADM advised
`
`Defendant that it was going to dry grain 24hrs per day due to demand.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 8 of 16
`
`71.
`
`At this same time, nighttime temperatures were forecasted to be at or around
`
`freezing.
`
`72.
`
`Prior to this time, Defendant knew its system permitted the discharge of product at
`
`temperatures well below -100 degrees demonstrating the system was not working properly.
`
`73.
`
`By the early morning of November 6, 2019, gas discharge temperatures as
`
`monitored by Defendant, reached temperatures around 130 degrees colder than ambient
`
`temperatures at the time.
`
`74.
`
`By this time, Defendant knew or should have known that the system they selected
`
`had run away.
`
`75.
`
`Given these gas temperatures, product reaching the ADM grain dryer arrived at
`
`temperatures well below the temperature ratings of ADM’s propane delivery system, limitations
`
`known by Defendant.
`
`76.
`
`ADM advised Defendant that morning of ice build-up on equipment and asked for
`
`advice.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`Defendant gave no warnings and showed no urgency in addressing the situation.
`
`Due for a scheduled 12hr clean-out of the dryer, ADM initiated dryer shutdown
`
`procedures. Unbeknownst to ADM, the gas shut-off system was incapacitated due to deficiencies
`
`in Defendant’s equipment.
`
`79. With fuel still being delivered to the dryer’s burners, the burners did not shut down.
`
`80.
`
`The ongoing burner firing during the shutdown procedures led to an unanticipated
`
`heat build-up in the dryer and an eventual fire.
`
`81.
`
` The fire led to destruction of the dryer.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 9 of 16
`
`82.
`
`Unable to dry grain, ADM suffered business losses in the form of destroyed
`
`inventory, lost opportunities, lost revenue, transportation charges and missed drying opportunities.
`
`83.
`
`The equipment chosen for installation and use at the ADM Parr facility by
`
`Defendant was improper for the application and location.
`
`84.
`
`Defendant knew or should have known that the equipment it selected and installed
`
`at ADM Parr would be insufficient for use in November in northern Indiana given the use by
`
`ADM.
`
`85.
`
`Defendant knew or should have known the equipment it selected and installed at
`
`ADM Parr went against vaporizer manufacturer recommendations.
`
`86.
`
`Defendant knew or should have known that it was promoting itself as an expert in
`
`the selection and installation of equipment for use at ADM Parr.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`ADM relied on Defendant to properly select and install the proper equipment.
`
`Defendant owed ADM a duty to select the proper equipment.
`
`Defendant knew or should have known that ADM relied on it to select and install
`
`the proper equipment.
`
`90.
`
`Defendant knew the parameters or limitations of the propane line already installed
`
`at ADM Parr.
`
`91.
`
`Defendant made no recommendation that ADM change the propane delivery line
`
`to the grain dryer.
`
`92.
`
`Defendant knew or should have known the parameters or limitations of the existing
`
`propane delivery line to the grain dryer.
`
`93.
`
`Defendant owed ADM a duty to select equipment that was proper to accommodate
`
`the existing propane delivery line.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 10 of 16
`
`94.
`
`Defendant owed ADM a duty to select and install proper piping, equipment to the
`
`vaporizer, including that affecting fan speed.
`
`95.
`
`Defendant breached the duties owed to Plaintiff relating to the selection of proper
`
`equipment for the ADM Parr site.
`
`96.
`
`Defendants are liable for the following acts or omissions:
`
`a. Failure to properly select the proper LNG delivery equipment for use at ADM
`Parr;
`b. Failure to consider the existing equipment in its selection of the LNG delivery
`equipment for use at ADM Parr;
`c. Failed to adhere or comply with manufacturer recommendations in the selection
`of equipment for use at ADM Parr;
`d. Failure to use reasonable care in identifying the site needs and conditions and
`considering same in selecting the equipment for use at ADM Parr;
`e. Failure to properly select equipment for use at ADM Parr to avoid catastrophic
`failure at ADM Parr;
`f. Failure in its selection and installation of equipment to install or properly set a
`low temperature shut-off closing a solenoid valve cutting off flow of product
`through the vaporizer;
`g. Failure in its selection and installation of piping and other equipment to the
`vaporizer that interfered with the designed airflow of the unit, including the fan
`speed;
`h. Failure to properly install the equipment to permit the designed upward airflow
`through the unit;
`i. Failure to provide a turn-key solution for ADM Parr that would reasonably
`prevent catastrophic failure; and
`j. Otherwise failed to use reasonable care in the execution of its duties owed to
`ADM.
`
`97.
`
`The foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendant directly and proximately caused
`
`permanent and destructive damage to ADM ‘s property resulting in damages, including that
`
`destructive damage and consequential business losses.
`
`WHEREFORE, ADM demands judgment against Defendant for actual, compensatory and
`
`consequential damages, for costs incurred and for other and further relief as this Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 11 of 16
`
`COUNT II (Negligent Failure to Warn and Monitor)
`Defendant is the largest LNG manufacturer in the Midwest region of the United
`
`98.
`
`States.
`
`99.
`
`Defendants markets itself as an entity that provides turn-key LNG systems to
`
`customers.
`
`100. Defendant’s turn-key LNG systems include mobile storage of LNG, vaporization,
`
`installation and ongoing LNG system operation and monitoring.
`
`101. Defendant custom designs systems to meet its customers’ specific technical needs.
`
`102. Defendant then installs the LNG systems with its Field Services Team.
`
`103. Defendant then claims it provides monitoring of gas flow, storage levels, deliveries,
`
`safety and more 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year.
`
`104. Defendant represents that its LNG fueling systems feed into customers’ existing
`
`propane lines.
`
`105. Defendant represents that its LNG fueling systems can be used in grain drying
`
`applications in the Midwest.
`
`106.
`
`107.
`
`LNG is stored at approximately -260 degrees Fahrenheit.
`
`The LNG, prior to introduction to the customer’s fuel system, needs to be heated
`
`for regasification and to prevent damage to the customer’s fuel system.
`
`108. Vaporizers are heat exchangers used in LNG systems to ready the LNG for use in
`
`a burner system.
`
`109. Vaporizers come in different models with different heating mechanisms to account
`
`for the demands of the application and environment of use.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 12 of 16
`
`110. Ambient air vaporizers are the cheapest models and due to temperature and
`
`environmental conditions in Fall and Winter seasons, are not recommended for LNG systems in
`
`the upper Midwest.
`
`111.
`
`The vaporizer manufacturer from whom Defendant purchased the vaporizer used
`
`at ADM Parr recommended that Kinetrex not use the ambient air vaporizer in this application and
`
`environment.
`
`112.
`
`The style of vaporizer selected by Defendant is not good at low temperatures the
`
`design point for them is 70 degrees Fahrenheit and 70% relative humidity.
`
`113.
`
`This style of vaporizer is designed to be installed vertically permitting airflow as
`
`designed, in an upward direction through the unit.
`
`114. When properly selected and working properly, the gasified LNG product is to leave
`
`the vaporizer at a temperature within 20 degrees of ambient temperature.
`
`115. At some point before 2019, Defendant attempted to trial LNG equipment at ADM,
`
`but it iced over and ADM rejected the equipment.
`
`116.
`
`In or around February 2019, Defendant again approached ADM in an effort to sell
`
`ADM on the idea of switching its fuel at its Parr, Indiana grain drying facility from propane to
`
`LNG.
`
`117. At and after this time, Defendant represented that it would provide a turn-key LNG
`
`delivery system on-site at Parr that would meet ADM’s fuel needs for its grain drying operations.
`
`118. On information and belief, Defendant selected and installed its own piping and
`
`related equipment for connection to the vaporizer at ADM Parr.
`
`119. At and after this time, Defendant represented that its turn-key system would safely
`
`and effectively accommodate ADM’s existing propane equipment.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 13 of 16
`
`120. On or about October 17, 2019, ADM began drying grain at its Parr facility with
`
`fuel delivered through the LNG system designed, selected, installed and monitored by Defendant.
`
`121. During a wet harvest season, ADM needed to dry grain daily and depended on
`
`Defendant’s fuel delivery system to dry grain, an integral part of its businesss.
`
`122. Defendant knew that ADM relied on its fuel delivery system to carry out its
`
`business at the Parr facility.
`
`123. On the evening of November 5 into the morning of November 6, ADM advised
`
`Defendant that it was going to dry grain 24hrs per day due to demand.
`
`124. At this same time, nighttime temperatures were forecasted to be at or around
`
`freezing.
`
`125.
`
`Prior to this time, Defendant knew its system permitted the discharge of product at
`
`temperatures well below -100 degrees demonstrating the system was not working properly.
`
`126. By the early morning of November 6, 2019, gas discharge temperatures as
`
`monitored by Defendant, reached temperatures around 130 degrees colder than ambient
`
`temperatures at the time.
`
`127. By this time, Defendant knew or should have known that the system they selected
`
`had run away.
`
`128. Given these gas temperatures, product reaching the ADM grain dryer arrived at
`
`temperatures well below the temperature ratings of ADM’s propane delivery system, limitations
`
`known by Defendant.
`
`129. ADM advised Defendant that morning of ice build-up on equipment and asked for
`
`advice.
`
`130. Defendant gave no warnings and showed no urgency in addressing the situation.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 14 of 16
`
`131. Due for a scheduled 12hr clean-out of the dryer, ADM initiated dryer shutdown
`
`procedures. Unbeknownst to ADM, the gas shut-off system was incapacitated due to deficiencies
`
`in Defendant’s equipment.
`
`132. With fuel still being delivered to the dryer’s burners, the burners did not shut down.
`
`133.
`
`The ongoing burner firing during the shutdown procedures led to an unanticipated
`
`heat build-up in the dryer and an eventual fire.
`
`134.
`
` The fire led to destruction of the dryer.
`
`135. Unable to dry grain, ADM suffered business losses in the form of destroyed
`
`inventory, lost opportunities, lost revenue, transportation charges and missed drying opportunities.
`
`136. Defendant knew or should have known of the discharge temperatures of product on
`
`November 6, 2019, based on its promise of 24/7/365 monitoring of its equipment.
`
`137.
`
`Through that monitoring, Defendant should have known that the discharge
`
`temperature exceeded the manufacturer’s and industry recommended discharge temperatures
`
`reflective of proper selection and operation of LNG delivery equipment.
`
`138. Defendant owed ADM a duty to reasonably and capably fulfill its monitoring
`
`promise.
`
`139. Defendant owed ADM a duty to act reasonably in response to information
`
`reflecting that its LNG equipment was not operating properly.
`
`140. Defendant owed ADM a duty to warn it of the limitations of the equipment in colder
`
`weather and continuous operation conditions.
`
`141. Defendant owed ADM a duty to properly and reasonably warn it of potential
`
`problems in the LNG delivery system when notified of ice build-up on the equipment on the
`
`morning of November 6, 2019.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 15 of 16
`
`142. Defendant owed ADM a duty to advise of warning signs that the equipment may
`
`compromise existing propane delivery systems under certain operating conditions.
`
`143. Defendant owed ADM a duty to train it on the proper signs that the equipment may
`
`be operating improperly or insufficiently and proper actions to take in response.
`
`144. Defendant breached the duties owed to ADM.
`
`145. Defendant is liable for acts and omissions amounting to negligence and/or gross
`
`negligence including, but not limited to the following:
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`Failure to capably and continuously monitor its equipment;
`Failure to fulfill its promise to capably and continuously monitor the equipment;
`Failure to ensure the safety of ADM’s facility as promised through capably and
`continuously monitoring the equipment;
`Failure to reasonably respond to information that its equipment was not operating
`properly and safely when it knew discharge temperatures were up to 130 degrees
`colder than they should have been;
`Failure to warn ADM of the limitations of its equipment operating in colder
`temperatures and/or under continuous operation conditions;
`Failure to warn ADM of potential problems and safety issues when it was notified
`of ice build-up on the equipment;
`Failure to warn ADM of warning signs that the equipment may compromise
`existing propane delivery systems under certain operating conditions;
`Failure to train at all and/or properly train ADM on the signs that the equipment
`may be operating insufficiently and the dangers associated with same; and
`Otherwise failed to fulfill its duties to ADM as it relates to monitoring, warning and
`training.
`
`146.
`
`The foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendant directly and proximately caused
`
`permanent and destructive damage to ADM ‘s property resulting in damages, including that
`
`destructive damage and consequential business losses.
`
`WHEREFORE, ADM demands judgment against Defendant for actual, compensatory and
`
`consequential damages, for costs incurred and for other and further relief as this Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 4:20-cv-00060-TLS-APR document 1 filed 07/14/20 page 16 of 16
`
`JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.
`
`/s/Stephen P. Ellenbecker
`Attorney for Defendant,
`
`Dated: July 14, 2020
`
`Stephen P. Ellenbecker
`(Bar No. 6277428)
`JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.
`33 W. Monroe St., Suite 2700
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`Phone: (312) 372-0770
`Fax: (312) 372-9818
`ellenbeckers@jbltd.com
`Firm ID#06347
`
`