Case: 4:20-cv-00500-DDN Doc. #: 33 Filed: 04/20/20 Page: 1 of 9 PageID #: 23
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`
`
`DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A.,
`INC.
`
`v.
`AMCO INSURUANCE COMPANY
`
`and
`
`THE MIDWEST’S BEST PRODUCE
`COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00500-DDN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT THE MIDWEST’S BEST PRODUCE COMPANY’S
`
`ANSWER
`
`TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Defendant The Midwest’s Best Produce Company (“Midwest”) files its Answer to Plaintiff
`
`Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc’s (“Del Monte”) Complaint for Declaratory and states as
`
`follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
` Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`
`
`DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A.,
`INC.
`
`v.
`AMCO INSURUANCE COMPANY
`
`and
`
`THE MIDWEST’S BEST PRODUCE
`COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00500-DDN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT THE MIDWEST’S BEST PRODUCE COMPANY’S
`
`ANSWER
`
`TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Defendant The Midwest’s Best Produce Company (“Midwest”) files its Answer to Plaintiff
`
`Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc’s (“Del Monte”) Complaint for Declaratory and states as
`
`follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
` Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-00500-DDN Doc. #: 33 Filed: 04/20/20 Page: 2 of 9 PageID #: 24
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
`
`3.
`
`Midwest admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Midwest states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint
`
`constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
`
`necessary, said allegations are denied.
`
`5.
`
`Midwest states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint
`
`constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
`
`necessary, said allegations are denied.
`
`6.
`
`Midwest states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint
`
`constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
`
`necessary, said allegations are denied.
`
`7.
`
` Midwest states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint
`
`constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
`
`necessary, said allegations are denied.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`8.
`
`Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 – ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-00500-DDN Doc. #: 33 Filed: 04/20/20 Page: 3 of 9 PageID #: 25
`
`
`
`10. Midwest admits that Del Monte purchased broccoli crowns, celery and cauliflower
`
`from Midwest from time to time. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore
`
`denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`11. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
`
`12. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
`
`13. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`14. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
`
`15.
`
` Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
`
`16. Midwest states that the Continuing Food Guarantee is the best evidence of the
`
`agreement entered into by the parties and further states that the contents of the agreement are the
`
`best evidence of the contents contained therein. Midwest denies any allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 16 of the Complaint to the extent that they are inconsistent with or misstate the terms
`
`of the attached exhibit.
`
` 17. Midwest states that the Continuing Food Guarantee is the best evidence of the
`
`agreement entered into by the parties and further states that the contents of the agreement are the
`
`best evidence of the contents contained therein. Midwest denies any allegations contained in
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 – ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-00500-DDN Doc. #: 33 Filed: 04/20/20 Page: 4 of 9 PageID #: 26
`
`
`
`Paragraph 17 of the Complaint to the extent that they are inconsistent with or misstate the terms
`
`of the attached exhibit.
`
`18. Midwest states that the Continuing Food Guarantee is the best evidence of the
`
`agreement entered into by the parties and further states that the contents of the agreement are the
`
`best evidence of the contents contained therein. Midwest denies any allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 18 of the Complaint to the extent that they are inconsistent with or misstate the terms
`
`of the attached exhibit.
`
`19. Midwest admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
`
`20. Midwest admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
`
`21. Midwest admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
`
`22. Midwest admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
`
`23. Midwest admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`24. Midwest admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
`
`25. Midwest states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint
`
`constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
`
`necessary, denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
`
`26. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
`
`27. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
`
`28. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 – ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-00500-DDN Doc. #: 33 Filed: 04/20/20 Page: 5 of 9 PageID #: 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29. Midwest states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint
`
`constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
`
`necessary, Midwest admits that Del Monte paid for the strawberry plants, but denies the remaining
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`
`30. Midwest states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint
`
`constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
`
`necessary, Midwest denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`
`31. Midwest admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
`
`32. Midwest admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
`
`33. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`34. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
`
`35. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`
`36. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
`
`37. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 – ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-00500-DDN Doc. #: 33 Filed: 04/20/20 Page: 6 of 9 PageID #: 28
`
`
`
`38. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`39. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`40. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
`
`41. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT I
`
`42. Midwest incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1
`
`through 40 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`43. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`44. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`45. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
`
`46. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
`
`47. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 – ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-00500-DDN Doc. #: 33 Filed: 04/20/20 Page: 7 of 9 PageID #: 29
`
`
`
`48. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
`
`49. Midwest is without sufficient information to admit, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`WHEREFORE having fully answered the allegations contained in the Complaint, Midwest
`
`respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, assess costs against Del Monte,
`
`and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Midwest expressly states that this Court should deny the relief requested by Del Monte in
`
`the Complaint.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Del Monte’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`Del Monte’s Complaint fails to allege any cause of action against Midwest.
`
`Del Monte’s claims are barred in whole or part because Midwest did not violate
`
`any duty owed to Del Monte under the common law, by statute or otherwise.
`
`4.
`
`The alleged damages claimed by Del Monte, the existence of which Midwest
`
`expressly denies, were caused by the fault of third parties not under Midwest’s control.
`
`5.
`
`The alleged damages, if any, were caused by factors outside of Midwest’s control
`
`such as weather, soil conditions and/or farming methods.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Damages claimed are barred by Del Monte’s contributing negligence.
`
`Midwest is not legally responsible in any fashion with respect to the damages and
`
`
`
`injuries claimed by Plaintiff in the Complaint; however, if Midwest is subjected to any liability to
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 – ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-00500-DDN Doc. #: 33 Filed: 04/20/20 Page: 8 of 9 PageID #: 30
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, it will be due, in whole or in part, to the acts, omissions, activities, carelessness,
`
`recklessness, negligence, and/or intentional misconduct of others; wherefore, any recovery
`
`obtained by Plaintiff against Midwest should be reduced in proportion to the respective negligence
`
`and fault and legal responsibility of all other parties, persons and entities, their agents, servants
`
`and employees contributed to and/or caused any such injury and/or damages, in accordance with
`
`the law of comparative negligence; the liability of Midwest, if any, is limited in direct proportion
`
`to the percentage of fault actually attributed to it.
`
`8.
`
`If any damages are recoverable by Plaintiff against any other person and/or entity
`
`arising from the subject loss, then the amount of such damages shall be diminished by the amount
`
`of the funds that the Plaintiff has or shall receive such collateral source.
`
`9.
`
`Midwest reserves the right to plead and assert additional and other defenses or
`
`claims as they are discovered, prior to trial.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Midwest hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`DATED this 20th day of April 2020.
`
`
`MCCARTY LEONARD KAEMMERER, LC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. McGovern
`Brian E. McGovern, Mo. #34677
` bmcgovern@mlklaw.com
`Chad M. deRoode, Mo. #47749
`cderode@mlklaw.com
`825 Maryville Centre Drive, Suite 300
`Town and Country, MO 63017
`314.392.5200 ; 314.392.5221 (fax)
`Attorneys for Defendant The Midwest’s Best
`Produce
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 – ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:20-cv-00500-DDN Doc. #: 33 Filed: 04/20/20 Page: 9 of 9 PageID #: 31
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 20th day of April, 2020, I served the foregoing ANSWER AND
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT on all parties via electronic notice using the
`Court’s ECF System.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brain E. McGovern
`Brian E. McGovern
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 – ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
