UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

RICHARD SPINNENWEBER )CASE NO. 2:14-cv-00101-JTM-JEM

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ROBERT LADUCER, and )

RED RIVER SUPPLY )

INCORPORATED )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT,

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES, AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants, Robert Laducer and Red River Supply, Inc. (“Defendants”), by 

counsel, answer Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Complaint”) as follows:

1. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 in the Complaint and so 

deny them.

2-3. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations concerning the undefined phrase “at all times 

relevant herein” in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the Complaint and so deny them.

Defendants admit the remaining allegations.

4. The allegations contained in paragraph 4 in the Complaint contain a 

legal conclusion or statement of opinion as to the law in Indiana to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants state that 

employers may be responsible for the acts of their employees, but that the facts 

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 4 filed 04/02/14 page 1 of 7
and circumstances surrounding any alleged occurrence are informative in this 

inquiry. Defendants’ investigation into the facts underlying the Complaint is or 

may be ongoing. At this time, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 in the 

Complaint and so deny them.

5-6. Defendants’ investigation into the facts underlying the Complaint is or 

may be ongoing. At this time, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 5 

through 6 in the Complaint and so deny them.

7. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7 in the 

Complaint.

8-13. The allegations contained in paragraphs 8 through 13 in the 

Complaint contain a legal conclusion or statement of opinion as to the applicable 

controlling law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, Defendants state that operators of motor vehicles and/or commercial 

motor vehicles may owe duties to other persons or operators, but that the facts 

and circumstances surrounding any alleged occurrence are informative in this 

inquiry. Defendants’ investigation into the facts underlying the Complaint is or 

may be ongoing. At this time, to the extent that the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 8 through 13 are contrary to applicable controlling law, Defendants

deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 8 through 13 in the Complaint.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraphs 8 through 13

in the Complaint.

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 4 filed 04/02/14 page 2 of 7
14. The allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint are of a 

compound nature, may contain a legal conclusion to which no response is 

required, and make a response impossible without speculation, in general, or 

speculation into the meaning of the allegations. To the extent a response is 

required, Defendants deny any allegations of negligence, negligence per se, 

carelessness, “fault”, and any other purported wrongful conduct or inaction; and 

deny breaching any duties due and owing to the Plaintiff to the extent the 

allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint make these allegations. 

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations concerning the nature, extent, and origin of Plaintiff’s alleged 

damages and so deny them. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained 

in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, by counsel, requests Plaintiff take nothing by 

way of the Complaint, that costs be awarded to Defendants and the Court order 

all other proper relief.

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

In further defense against the Complaint, Defendants, by counsel, allege the 

following affirmative and other defenses. Defendants reserve the right to amend, 

supplement, and/or withdraw these defenses as discovery continues as well as 

further plead defenses upon completion of discovery.

1. If Defendants have failed to respond to any of the allegations in the 

Complaint, Defendant specifically deny them at this time.

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 4 filed 04/02/14 page 3 of 7
2. Defendants deny “liability” and further dispute every allegation and 

inference of supposed “fault” or other purported wrongful conduct or inaction.

3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or diminished to the extent that 

Plaintiff’s acts or omissions are subject to the provisions of the Indiana 

Comparative Fault Act. 

4. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate the alleged damages.

5. Plaintiff’s alleged damages [may be/are] solely the result of the acts 

or omissions of persons or entities other than Defendants, including, but not 

limited to the Plaintiff and any responsible non-parties whose names are not 

known at this time but may be ascertained through the process of discovery. 

Under the provisions of Ind. Code § 34-51-2-16, Defendants reserve reasonable 

opportunity to: (1)discover the existence of non-party defenses as alleged here; 

(2) add non-parties at Defendants’ option; (3) withdraw any non-party defenses 

as discovery continues; and/or (4) request the court to instruct the jury on any 

or none of the identified non-parties.

6. Defendants are entitled to set off, against any judgment entered in 

favor of Plaintiff, in the amount of collateral source payments received by 

Plaintiff following the incident which is the subject of Plaintiff’s Complaint 

pursuant to the legal and equitable principles of payment, satisfaction, accord 

and satisfaction, write-down, set-off and other related rules barring windfalls 

and double recovery. Furthermore, the defendant reserves the right to 

introduce into evidence proof of collateral source payments received by or on 

behalf of Plaintiff, pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-44-1-1 et seq., in the event it is 

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 4 filed 04/02/14 page 4 of 7
subsequently determined that such payments were made and are an 

appropriate matter for consideration by the jury.

7. Some or all of Plaintiff’s medical expenses may have been reduced 

by write-offs, set-offs, and/or adjustments in accordance with Indiana case, 

Stanley v. Walker or any other applicable law. In the event it is subsequently 

determined that Plaintiff’s medical expenses were reduced by write-offs, setoffs, and/or adjustments, these amounts are appropriate matters for 

consideration by the jury.

8. Plaintiff’s alleged damages may have been pre-existing or caused 

by another accident, incident, or event. Defendants expressly dispute the 

nature and extent of Plaintiff’s alleged damages and dispute whether those 

damages are/were causally related to the occurrence at issue in this litigation.

9. The Complaint may fail to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.

10. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by one or more Federal or state 

statutes.

11. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by one or more of the Indiana 

Rules of Trial Procedure.

12. The Complaint may fail to join a necessary party to this action. 

This court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this action with the absence of a 

necessary party.

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 4 filed 04/02/14 page 5 of 7
13. Defendants plead as affirmative defenses, all affirmative defenses 

of Rule 8(C) and Rule 12(B) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure as if fully 

restated herein, subject to further investigation and discovery.

14. Defendants incorporate by reference all affirmative defenses raised 

by other parties.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, by counsel, request Plaintiff take nothing by 

way of the Complaint, that costs be awarded to Defendants and the Court order 

all other proper relief.

JURY DEMAND

Defendants, by counsel, demand this cause be tried by a jury.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lee F. Baker

_________________________________

Lee F. Baker, # 19257-53

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY TRIAL DIVISION

Attorneys for Defendants

Red River Supply, Incorporated and

Robert Laducer

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 4 filed 04/02/14 page 6 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 2nd 2014, a copy of the foregoing was filed 

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing 

through the Court’s system.

David W. Craig

Scott A. Faultless

William J. Kelley

Kerri E. Farmer

Christopher M. Barry

CRAIG KELLEY & FAULTLESS, LLC

5845 Lawton Loop East Drive

Indianapolis, IN 46216

/s/ Lee F. Baker

_________________________________

Lee F. Baker, # 19257-53

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

Trial Division

11555 N. Meridian Street, Ste. 450

Carmel, Indiana 46032

Phone: 317/810-7118

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 4 filed 04/02/14 page 7 of 7