IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Indiana

Hammond Division

CARL G. ZECK and )

CHERYL ZECK, )

) Case No.2:16-cv-00314-JTM-PRC

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

)

PETER B. TITTLE, )

LGR TRUCKING, INC., )

and ILGXS VAN LEASING, )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants, Peter B. Tittle, LGR Trucking, Inc., and ILGXS Van Leasing, by 

counsel, for their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint for Damages, allege and say:

1. At all relevant times herein, Carl G. Zeck (hereinafter “Carl”) and 

Cheryl Zeck (hereinafter “Cheryl”), were residents of Demotte, Jasper County, 

Indiana.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the material allegations contained in 

paragraph one (1) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

2. At all relevant times herein, Peter B. Tittle (hereinafter “Tittle”) was 

a resident of Newport, Kentucky. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit the material allegations contained in 

paragraph two (2) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 1 of 16
2

3. At all relevant times herein, LGR Trucking, Inc. (hereinafter “LGR”) 

possessed a principal address of 2735 Spring Grove Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45225.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the material allegations contained in 

paragraph three (3) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

4. At all relevant times herein, ILGXS Van Leasing (hereinafter 

“ILGXS”) possessed a principal address of 251 Monroe Street, Kentworth, NJ 

08822.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the material allegations contained in 

paragraph four (4) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

5. At all relevant times herein, Cheryl was a passenger in the 

automobile driven by Plaintiff, Carl Zeck.

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material allegations contained 

in paragraph five (5) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 

6. At all relevant times herein, the Plaintiffs, Carl and Cheryl Zeck, and 

the Defendant, Peter B. Tittle, were involved in a motor vehicle collision in or 

about Hobart, Lake County, Indiana.

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material allegations contained 

in paragraph six (6) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 2 of 16
3

COUNT I

NEGLIGENCE/RECKLESSNESS (CARL ZECK v. TITTLE)

7. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations made in rhetorical 

paragraphs one through six (1-6) above, including sub-parts, as paragraph seven

(7) of Count I.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph seven (7) of Plaintiffs' Complaint, 

the Defendants incorporate by reference their response to paragraphs one 

(1) through six (6) of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth in their entirety.

8. On or about December 21, 2014, Carl was operating his motor 

vehicle northbound on I65 in or about Hobart, Lake County, Indiana, at or near 

the 255.4 mile marker, in the right lane.

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material allegations contained 

in paragraph eight (8) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 

9. On the same date and time, Tittle was operating his motor vehicle 

northbound on I65 in or about Hobart, Lake County, Indiana, at or near the 

255.4 mile marker, in the center lane and attempted to move into the right lane.

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material allegations contained 

in paragraph nine (9) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 

10. At all relevant times, Cheryl was a passenger in Carl’s automobile.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 3 of 16
4

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material allegations contained 

in paragraph ten (10) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 

11. While Carl was traveling northbound on I65 in or about Hobart, Lake 

County, Indiana, at or near the 255.4 mile marker, in the right lane, Tittle

disregarded the vehicles traveling immediately in front of, or in close proximity 

to, him and/or otherwise disregarded vehicles present upon the roadway, 

including the vehicle driven by Carl, and/or existing traffic signals/signs/road 

markers, causing a violent collision between the automobiles driven by the 

Plaintiff, Carl Zeck, and the Defendant, Tittle.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the material allegations contained in 

paragraph eleven (11) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

12. On or about December 21, 2014, Tittle owed a duty to Carl to operate 

his motor vehicle in a reasonably safe and prudent manner. Notwithstanding, 

Tittle breached his duty to Carl in one or more of the following respects:

A. Tittle operated his motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed 

limit or at an unusually high rate of speed given the extent of the surrounding 

circumstances and conditions;

B. Tittle failed to keep a proper lookout for Carl’s vehicle and 

other vehicles;

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 4 of 16
5

C. Tittle failed to timely apply his brakes or otherwise stop to 

avoid the collision;

D. Tittle failed to take evasive maneuvers to avoid the collision;

E. Tittle failed to yield to oncoming traffic;

F. Tittle failed to obey lawful traffic signals, controls and road 

markers; 

G. Tittle failed to ensure that the vehicle he was operating was 

sufficiently maintained such that the same was safe to operate upon a public 

roadway and/or otherwise did not pose a danger to those present upon the 

public roadway; and

H. Tittle failed to use the same due care and/or caution that a 

reasonably prudent person would have used under the same or substantially 

similar circumstances.

ANSWER: As to the material allegations contained in paragraph 

twelve (12), including subparagraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Defendant Peter B. Tittle owed all duties 

applicable to other motorists under Indiana law. Defendants deny the 

material allegations contained in paragraph twelve (12) to the extent that 

they are inconsistent with Indiana law.

13. As a direct and proximate result of Tittle’s negligence, carelessness, 

and reckless disregard for the safety of other motorists, he struck Carl’s vehicle 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 5 of 16
6

or otherwise caused Carl’s motor vehicle to come into contact with his, causing 

a violent and forceful collision. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the material allegations contained in 

paragraph thirteen (13) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

14. As a direct and proximate result of the subject collision occasioned 

by Tittle’s negligence, carelessness, and reckless disregard for the safety of other 

motorists, Carl sustained permanent and severe personal injuries; incurred and 

will incur hospital, diagnostic, surgical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, and other 

medical expenses; suffered and will continue to suffer physical pain, mental 

suffering, terror, fright, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; incurred lost 

wages, lost income, and loss of future earning capacity; and incurred other 

injuries and damages of a personal and pecuniary nature, including, but not 

limited to, property damage.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the material allegations contained in 

paragraph fourteen (14) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment in their favor, that Plaintiffs 

take nothing by way of their Complaint, for costs of this action, and for all other 

just and proper relief in the premises.

COUNT II

NEGLIGENCE/RECKLESSNESS (CHERYL ZECK v. TITTLE)

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 6 of 16
7

15. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations made in rhetorical 

paragraphs one through fourteen (1-14) above, including sub-parts, as 

paragraph fifteen (15) of Count II.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph fifteen (15) of Plaintiffs' 

Complaint, the Defendants incorporate by reference their response to 

paragraphs one (1) through fourteen (14) of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth 

in their entirety.

16. On or about December 21, 2014, Cheryl was a passenger in an 

automobile that was traveling northbound on I65 in or about Hobart, Lake 

County, Indiana, at or near the 255.4 mile marker, in the right lane, and being 

driven by Plaintiff, Carl.

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material allegations contained 

in paragraph sixteen (16) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore deny the 

same. 

17. On the same date and time, Tittle was operating his motor vehicle 

northbound on I65 in or about Hobart, Lake County, Indiana, at or near the 

255.4 mile marker, in the center lane and attempted to move into the right lane.

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material allegations contained 

in paragraph seventeen (17) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore deny the 

same. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 7 of 16
8

18. At all relevant times, Cheryl was a passenger in Carl’s automobile.

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material allegations contained 

in paragraph eighteen (18) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore deny the 

same. 

19. While Cheryl was a passenger in an automobile that was traveling 

northbound on I65 in or about Hobart, Lake County, Indiana, at or near the 

255.4 mile marker, in the right lane, Tittle disregarded the vehicles traveling 

immediately in front of, or in close proximity to, him and/or otherwise 

disregarded vehicles present upon the roadway, including the vehicle driven by 

Carl and, in which, Cheryl was a passenger, and/or existing traffic 

signals/signs/road markers, causing a violent collision between the automobiles 

driven by the Plaintiff, Carl Zeck, and the Defendant, Tittle.

ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material allegations contained 

in paragraph nineteen (19) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore deny the 

same. 

20. On or about December 21, 2014, Tittle owed a duty to Cheryl to 

operate his motor vehicle in a reasonably safe and prudent manner. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 8 of 16
9

Notwithstanding, Tittle breached his duty to Cheryl in one or more of the 

following respects:

A. Tittle operated his motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed 

limit or at an unusually high rate of speed given the extent of the surrounding 

circumstances and conditions;

B. Tittle failed to keep a proper lookout for Carl’s vehicle and 

other vehicles;

C. Tittle failed to timely apply his brakes or otherwise stop to 

avoid the collision;

D. Tittle failed to take evasive maneuvers to avoid the collision;

E. Tittle failed to yield to oncoming traffic;

F. Tittle failed to obey lawful traffic signals, controls and road 

markers; 

G. Tittle failed to ensure that the vehicle he was operating was 

sufficiently maintained such that the same was safe to operate upon a public 

roadway and/or otherwise did not pose a danger to those present upon the 

public roadway; and

H. Tittle failed to use the same due care and/or caution that a 

reasonably prudent person would have used under the same or substantially 

similar circumstances.

ANSWER: As to the material allegations contained in paragraph 

twenty (20), including subparagraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Defendant Peter B. Tittle owed all duties 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 9 of 16
10

applicable to other motorists under Indiana law. Defendants deny the 

material allegations contained in paragraph twelve (12) to the extent that 

they are inconsistent with Indiana law.

21. As a direct and proximate result of Tittle’s negligence, carelessness, 

and reckless disregard for the safety of other motorists, he struck Carl’s vehicle 

or otherwise caused Carl’s motor vehicle to come into contact with his, wherein 

Cheryl was a passenger in Carl’s automobile, causing a violent and forceful 

collision. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the material allegations contained in 

paragraph twenty-one (21) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

22. As a direct and proximate result of the subject collision occasioned 

by Tittle’s negligence, carelessness, and reckless disregard for the safety of other 

motorists, Cheryl sustained permanent and severe personal injuries; incurred 

and will incur hospital, diagnostic, surgical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, and 

other medical expenses; suffered and will continue to suffer physical pain, 

mental suffering, terror, fright, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; 

incurred lost wages, lost income, and loss of future earning capacity; and 

incurred other injuries and damages of a personal and pecuniary nature, 

including, but not limited to, property damage.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the material allegations contained in 

paragraph twenty-two (22) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 10 of 16
11

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment in their favor, that Plaintiffs 

take nothing by way of their Complaint, for costs of this action, and for all other 

just and proper relief in the premises.

COUNT III

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR/VICARIOUS LIABILITY (ZECK vs. LGR)

23. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in rhetorical 

paragraphs one through twenty-two (1-22) above, including sub-parts, as 

rhetorical paragraph twenty-three (23) of Count III of this cause of action.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph twenty-three (23) of Plaintiffs' 

Complaint, the Defendants incorporate by reference their response to 

paragraphs one (1) through twenty-two (22) of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set 

forth in their entirety.

24. At all relevant times herein, LGR and/or ILGXS owned, controlled, 

leased or was otherwise responsible for the operation of the semi-tractor trailer 

being operated by Tittle, a 2012 Peterbilt Motors, with 1980 Beri Trailer.

ANSWER: As to the material allegations contained in paragraph 

twenty-four (24) of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants admit that the truck 

was owned by LGR Trucking, Inc. Defendants deny all remaining material 

allegations contained in paragraph twenty-four (24) of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 

By way of further answering, Defendants state that Peter B. Tittle is an 

independent contractor of LGR Trucking, Inc.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 11 of 16
12

25. At all relevant times herein, Tittle was an employee and/or agent of 

LGR and/or ILGXS.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the material allegations contained in 

paragraph twenty-five (25) of Plaintiffs' Complaint. By way of further 

answering, Defendants state that Peter B. Tittle is an independent contractor 

of LGR Trucking, Inc.

26. At all relevant times herein, Tittle was operating the 2012 Peterbilt 

Motors, with 1980 Beri Trailer within the course and scope of his employment 

and/or was acting within the scope of his employment.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the material allegations contained in 

paragraph twenty-six (26) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment in their favor, that Plaintiffs 

take nothing by way of their Complaint, for costs of this action, and for all other 

just and proper relief in the premises.

COUNT IV

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR/VICARIOUS LIABILITY (ZECK vs. ILGXS)

27. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in rhetorical 

paragraphs one through twenty-six (1-26) above, including sub-parts, as 

rhetorical paragraph twenty-seven (27) of Count IV of this cause of action.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 12 of 16
13

ANSWER: In response to paragraph twenty-seven (27) of Plaintiffs' 

Complaint, the Defendants incorporate by reference their response to 

paragraphs one (1) through twenty-six (26) of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set 

forth in their entirety.

28. At all relevant times herein, LGR and/or ILGXS owned, controlled, 

leased or was otherwise responsible for the operation of the semi-tractor trailer 

being operated by Tittle, a 2012 Peterbilt Motors, with 1980 Beri Trailer.

ANSWER: As to the material allegations contained in paragraph 

twenty-eight (28) of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants admit that the truck 

was owned by LGR Trucking, Inc. Defendants deny all remaining material 

allegations contained in paragraph twenty-eight (28) of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 

By way of further answering, Defendants state that Peter B. Tittle is an 

independent contractor of LGR Trucking, Inc.

29. At all relevant times herein, Tittle was an employee and/or agent of 

LGR and/or ILGXS.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the material allegations contained in 

paragraph twenty-nine (29) of Plaintiffs' Complaint. By way of further 

answering, Defendants state that Peter B. Tittle is an independent contractor 

of LGR Trucking, Inc.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 13 of 16
14

30. At all relevant times herein, Tittle was operating the 2012 Peterbilt 

Motors, with 1980 Beri Trailer within the course and scope of his employment 

and/or was acting within the scope of his employment.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the material allegations contained in 

paragraph thirty (30) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment in their favor, that Plaintiffs 

take nothing by way of their Complaint, for costs of this action, and for all other 

just and proper relief in the premises.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants, Peter B. Tittle, LGR Trucking, Inc., and ILGXS Van Leasing, by 

counsel, for their Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Complaint for Damages, allege 

and say:

1. Plaintiffs' claim should be reduced by the comparative fault of Plaintiff, 

Carl Zeck.

2. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because the comparative fault of the 

Plaintiff, Carl Zeck, exceeds fifty percent (50%).

3. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages.

4. Plaintiffs have already been fully or partially compensated for the 

injuries and/or damages of which they complain and are therefore not entitled to 

recover from Defendants, and/or such full or partial compensation is a set-off 

against any claim by Plaintiffs against Defendants.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 14 of 16
15

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment in their favor, that Plaintiffs 

take nothing by way of their Complaint, for costs of this action, and for all other 

just and proper relief in the premises.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Defendants respectfully demand a trial by 

jury.

Respectfully submitted,

TRAVELERS STAFF COUNSEL INDIANA

By: /s/ Paul T. Belch

 Paul T. Belch, #18533-49

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 15 of 16
16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on this 3rd day of August, 2016, a copy of 

this document 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.

By: /s/ Paul T. Belch

 Paul T. Belch, #18533-49

TRAVELERS STAFF COUNSEL INDIANA

280 East 96th Street, Suite 325

Indianapolis, IN 46240

PH (317) 818-5100

FX (317) 818-5124

pbelch@travelers.com

PTB:gb

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00314-RL document 10 filed 08/03/16 page 16 of 16