1/1484030.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

LARRY JAMES ADAMS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-00753-CSC 

 ) 

METROPOLITAN LIFE ) 

INSURANCE CO. and LISA DAVIS, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ANSWER

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) answers 

Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows: 

1. MetLife admits that it is an insurance company organized under the 

laws of the state of New York, does business in the state of Alabama, and has a 

registered agent in Alabama and that Lisa Davis is a MetLife agent. Otherwise, 

MetLife is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in 

paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 

2. MetLife admits that it does business in Lowndes County, Alabama. 

Otherwise, MetLife is without sufficient information to admit or deny the 

allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 1 of 13
1/1484030.1 2

3. MetLife admits that Plaintiff enrolled in group life insurance. 

Otherwise, MetLife denies the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

4. Denied. 

5. MetLife admits that Plaintiff signed the enrollment form and had 

premiums deducted and that a claim was submitted for Plaintiff’s aunt as his child, 

which MetLife denied. Otherwise, MetLife denies the allegations of paragraph 5 

of the Complaint. 

6. Denied. 

7. MetLife denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any judgment or to any 

damages in this action. 

8. Denied. 

9. MetLife denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any judgment or to any 

damages in this action. 

10. Denied. 

11. MetLife denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any judgment or to any 

damages in this action. 

12. Denied. 

13. MetLife denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any judgment or to any 

damages in this action. 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 2 of 13
1/1484030.1 3

FIRST DEFENSE

 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim against MetLife upon which relief 

can be granted by this Court. 

SECOND DEFENSE

 Each count of Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim against MetLife 

upon which relief can be granted. 

THIRD DEFENSE

 MetLife denies that Plaintiff is entitled to extra-contractual damages in this 

action. 

FOURTH DEFENSE

 In order to preserve these defenses, the claims asserted by Plaintiff against 

MetLife are barred by latches or other applicable doctrines of timeliness or statutes 

of limitation. 

FIFTH DEFENSE

 MetLife pleads the general issue. 

SIXTH DEFENSE

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 3 of 13
1/1484030.1 4

 Plaintiff has failed to meet all conditions precedent to an award of benefits 

under the subject certificate of insurance. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE

 Some or all of the damages claimed by Plaintiff are barred by the terms and 

conditions of the subject certificate of insurance issued by MetLife. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE

MetLife contests the injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint 

and therefore demands strict proof of any alleged injury or damage. 

NINTH DEFENSE

 MetLife states that it is not indebted or liable to the Plaintiff in any manner 

or amount whatsoever. 

TENTH DEFENSE

 Plaintiff has not been damaged by any conduct on the part of MetLife. 

ELEVENTH DEFENSE 

 MetLife denies that it has breached any contract with the Plaintiff, whether 

express or implied. 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 4 of 13
1/1484030.1 5

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to the insurance benefits claimed of MetLife because 

the subject death was excluded from coverage by one or more of the exclusions 

found in the certificate of insurance. 

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

 To the extent Plaintiff makes a claim for punitive damages against MetLife 

in this action: 

1. No act or omission of MetLife was malicious, willful, wanton 

outrageous, or attended by actual malice, and Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted for punitive damages. 

2. Any claim for punitive damages against MetLife would violate its 

rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

Constitution of the United States; Article 1, Sections 1, 2, 6, 11, 13, 15, 27, and 35 

of the Alabama Constitution. 

3. Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages against MetLife because 

such an award, which is penal in nature, would violate it’s constitutional rights 

under the Alabama Constitution and the United States Constitution unless it is 

afforded the same procedural safeguards as are criminal defendants, including, but 

not limited to, the right to avoid self incrimination, the right to forego production 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 5 of 13
1/1484030.1 6

and disclosure of incriminating documents, and the right to the requirement of a 

level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

4. The imposition of punitive damages against MetLife in this case 

would violate the rights of MetLife under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause of Article 1, 

Section 13 of the Alabama Constitution, and the prohibition against cruel and 

unusual punishment and excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution. 

5. Any punitive damages sought against MetLife would be in excess of 

comparable maximums established for criminal fines by the Alabama legislature in 

Ala. Code §§ 13A-5-11 and 13A-5-12, jointly and separately. 

6. MetLife pleads the constitutional limitations set forth in BMW of 

North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S. Ct. 1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996), 

Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001), 

State Farm Mutual Insurance Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 

1513 (Apr. 7, 2003), and Horton Homes, Inc. v. Brooks, 2001 WL 1520623 (Ala. 

Nov. 30, 2001), since determination of the amount or proper circumstances for an 

award of punitive damages without consideration of these limitations would deny 

MetLife due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution and in violation of the Alabama Constitution. 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 6 of 13
1/1484030.1 7

7. Subjecting MetLife to punitive damages, or affirming an award of 

punitive damages against MetLife in this case, would amount to and constitute a 

denial of due process as afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by the Due Process Clause of 

Article 1, Section 6 of the Alabama Constitution, as a deprivation of property 

without due process, or standards or criteria of due process, based upon the 

following grounds and circumstances, separately and severally assigned: 

(a) any award of punitive damages against MetLife under the 

evidence in this case would necessarily be based upon an evidentiary standard no 

higher or more than a standard of simple negligence, and not upon a standard of 

proof beyond a reasonable doubt; 

(b) there is a lack of reasonable standards necessary to instruct the 

jury on the propriety and amount of any punitive damages award, and, unless such 

awards are subject to predetermined limits, such awards cannot pass constitutional 

muster; 

(c) use of the Alabama Pattern Jury Instruction 11.03 or any 

equivalent in instructing the jury as to the award of punitive damages, and the 

amount of such an award, does not provide sufficient guidance or standards for the 

award or amount of punitive damages; 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 7 of 13
1/1484030.1 8

(d) any punitive damages award would not be subject to post trial 

and appellate review on the basis of suitable and sufficient objective standards and 

criteria; 

(e) the power and authority imposed upon the jury under Alabama 

law as to the amount of punitive damages awarded under the statutory cap is so 

relatively unfettered that there is lacking any reasonable or logical standard, 

uniform criteria, or guidance in the assessment of the amount of the award of 

punitive damages; 

(f) under Alabama law and procedure, there is no objective, 

logical, or rational relationship between the award, or the amount of the award, of 

punitive damages and a defendant’s alleged wrongful or culpable conduct; 

(g) under Alabama law and procedure, there is no objective, 

logical, or rational relationship between the award, or the amount of the award, of 

punitive damages and the interests or goals of the State of Alabama referable to the 

imposition or allowance of punitive damages; 

(h) under Alabama law and procedure, there is no objective or 

rational criteria for the amount of the award of punitive damages as it relates or 

compares to the assessment of compensatory damages, or amount of compensatory 

damages; 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 8 of 13
1/1484030.1 9

(i) an award of punitive damages may be assessed against MetLife 

for unauthorized acts of its agent or agents without any additional requirement of 

knowledge or fault on the part of MetLife; 

(j) an award of punitive damages may be assessed against MetLife 

vicariously as a principal without any further proof of independent, wrongful 

conduct or ratification by MetLife; 

(k) Alabama procedures, pursuant to which amounts of punitive 

damages are awarded, permit the imposition of different penalties for the same or 

similar acts; 

(l) under Alabama law and procedures governing the award and 

assessment of punitive damages, there is no objective, logical, or reasonable 

standard or criteria which governs the award, or the amount of the award, of 

punitive damages; 

(m) the procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded 

fail to provide a reasonable limit on the amount of the award against MetLife; 

(n) the procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded 

are unconstitutionally vague; 

(o) the procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded 

fail to provide a clear post trial or appellate standard of review for an award of 

punitive damages; 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 9 of 13
1/1484030.1 10

(p) the procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded 

may permit the admission of evidence relative to punitive damages in the same 

proceedings during which liability and compensatory damages are determined; and 

(q) an award of punitive damages would constitute an arbitrary and 

capricious taking of property of MetLife without due process of law. 

8. Any imposition of punitive damages in this case against MetLife 

would contravene the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in that 

such an award would constitute, if imposed, an undue and unreasonable burden on 

interstate commerce. 

9. To award punitive damages against MetLife in this case would have a 

chilling effect upon its rights to open access to the courts in this State, in violation 

of the United States Constitution and the Alabama Constitution, separately and 

severally. 

10. Based upon Alabama procedures relative to punitive damages, which 

provide no objective, logical, or reasonable standards or criteria which govern the 

award, MetLife is denied equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 1, 6, 

and 22 of the Alabama Constitution, separately and severally. 

11. In the event, and to the extent that, the award of punitive damages, or 

the amount of the award of punitive damages under Alabama practice and 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 10 of 13
1/1484030.1 11

procedure, is deemed to be governed by § 6-11-20, Ala. Code 1975, then, and to 

that extent, said section violates the Alabama Constitution and the United States 

Constitution, separately and severally, based upon the grounds enumerated and set 

forth in the foregoing paragraphs. 

12. Any demand for punitive damages in the instant case would be subject 

to those limitations established by the Alabama Legislature and set forth in § 6-11-

21, Code of Alabama, as amended in 1999 (Act. No. 99-358). MetLife adopts by 

reference the defenses, criteria, limitations and standards mandated by this 

Alabama statute. 

13. The Alabama Supreme Court’s action in abolishing the legislatively 

created cap on punitive damages was unconstitutional. Under the Constitutions of 

the United States and the State of Alabama, the Alabama Supreme Court cannot 

abolish the cap created by the legislature as to punitive damages. See Honda 

Motor Company, Ltd. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415, 431 n.9, 114 S. Ct. 2331, 129 L. Ed. 

2d 336 (1994). 

14. MetLife adopts the terms of any applicable legislative act or Alabama 

or United States Supreme Court decision which now or hereafter precludes 

punitive damages or limits the amount of punitive damages which can be 

recovered in an action at law in Alabama. 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 11 of 13
1/1484030.1 12

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

At the time of filing this Answer, discovery has not begun. MetLife reserves 

the right to amend its Answer with such other and further defenses as may be 

warranted based on information learned through discovery. 

 

 

s/James S. Christie, Jr. 

James S. Christie, Jr. (CHR011) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2119 

Telephone: (205) 521-8000 

Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 

jchristie@bradleyarant.com 

 

Attorney for Defendant 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 12 of 13
1/1484030.1 13

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I hereby certify that on August 25, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification 

of such filing to the following: 

Mickey J.G. McDermott, Esq. 

P.O. Box 919 

Hayneville, AL 36040 

Telephone Phone: 264-6466 

Business Main Street Fax: 263-7782 

Business Main Street Phone: 264-6466 

mk_mcdrm@bellsouth.net

Attorney for Plaintiff 

and that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the 

following non-CM/ECF participants: 

 None. 

 s/James S. Christie, Jr. 

James S. Christie, Jr. (CHR011) 

 Attorney for Defendants 

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 13 of 13