Fill and Sign the Alabama General Answer to Tort Complaints Form

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF __________ COUNTY, ALABAMA _________________ * * Plaintiff, * * VS. * CIVIL ACTION NO.: * _________________ * CV -_______________ * Defendant. * ANSWER OF _______________ COMES NOW the defendant, ___________________, in the above -styled case, by and through counsel, and answers plaint iff’s complaint as follows: [Here, admit or deny specific allegations of plaintiff’s complaint as follows: “Admitted” OR “This defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph ____ and demands strict proof thereof”.] FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs' complaint and each allegation contained therein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs are barred recovery against this defendant based upon the applicable statute of limitations. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs are barred recovery against this defendant based upon their failure to reasonably or justifiably rely upon any alleged statements. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs are barred recovery against this defendant be cause this defendant did not make any misrepresentations nor conceal any facts from this defendant. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE An award of punitive damages as claimed by the plaintiffs would violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendm ents of the Constitution of the United States and Articles I, and Section 1, 6, 15, and 22 of the Constitution of Alabama on the following separate and several grounds: (a) An award of punitive damages as claimed would violate the defendant's right to the equal protection of the laws. (b) An award of punitive damages as claimed would violate the defendant's right to due process. (c) An award of punitive damages as claimed would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United Stat es Constitution and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution of Alabama. (d) The procedures allowed fail to provide a limit on the amount of the award against the defendant. (e) The procedures fail to provide specific standards for the award of pun itive damages. (f) The procedures fail to provide specific standards for the amount of the award of punitive damages. (g) The procedures allowed permit the award of punitive damages upon satisfaction of a reduced standard of proof inconsistent with the d ecisional authority of the United States Supreme Court. (h) The procedures allowed permit multiple awards of punitive damages for the same alleged act. (i) The procedures allowed fail to provide a clear and consistent appellate standard of review of an a ward of punitive damages. (j) The procedures allowed permit the admission of evidence relative to punitive damages in the same proceeding during which compensatory damages are determined. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant denies it has been guilty of any conduct that warrants the issue of punitive damages being submitted to a jury or allows Plaintiff to recover punitive damages. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims for recovery of punitive damages are barred by section 6 -11 -20, et. seq ., of the Code of Alabama . NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims for the recovery of punitive damages are barred by section 6 -11 -27 of the Code of Alabama . TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barre d by section 27 -14 -7 of the Code of Alabama . ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The punitive damages sought are in excess of comparable maximums established for criminal fines by the Alabama Legislature in Code of Alabama sections 13 -A-4-11 and 13 -A- 5-12, joi ntly and separately. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Section 6 -11 -21 of the Code of Alabama bars Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages to the extent that it exceeds the amount of $250,000.00, which the Alabama Legislature has established as the outer limit of reasonableness for awards of punitive damages as a matter of public policy in this state. The Alabama Supreme Court acted beyond its scope of authority and violated the separation of powers clause of the United States Constitution and/or the Alabama Co nstitution in striking down this legislative mandate and therefore its action was unconstitutional and without effect. Allowing an award in excess of this Legislative cap directly contravenes the express public policy of the State of Alabama. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages may result in multiple punitive damage awards to be assessed for the same act or omission against this Defendant, this award contravenes Defendant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the due process clause of article I, section 13 of the Alabama Con stitution. In addition, such award would infringe upon Defendants rights against double jeopardy insured by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and/or article I, section 9 of the Alabama Constitution. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE An award of punitive damages in the circumstances of this case would clearly be violative of the Defendant's due process rights as embraced by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the due process clause of article I, se ction 6 and/or 13 of the Alabama Constitution, jointly and separately, as such award would constitute a deprivation of property without due process, of law for the following reasons as separately stated herein. 1. Present Alabama procedures may permit the admission of evidence relative to punitive damages in the same proceeding during which liability is determined. 2. Alabama courts lack adequate standards or guidance to instruct a jury with regards to assessing the amount and appropriateness of a punitiv e damage award. 3. Post verdict review of a punitive damage award is similarly subject to insufficient standards or criterion under present Alabama law to accord Defendant's due process of law. 4. Punitive damage awards in Alabama lack a rational relatio nship to the wrongfulness of Defendant's conduct and/or the compensatory damages awarded. 5. The procedures utilized by Alabama courts and/or the jury instructions provided to Alabama jurors, jointly and separately, are vague and ambiguous. 6. The extent of punitive damages in Alabama lacks a rational relationship to the legitimate interests to be advanced by the State of Alabama. 7. An award of punitive damages in this case would be penal in nature and thus, would violate Defendant's c onstitutional rig hts under the United States Constitution and/or the Alabama Constitution unless the Defendant is granted the procedural safeguards afforded criminal defendants including but not limited to constitutional safeguards against self -incrimination and a heighten ed standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. TWENTY -FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant reserves the right to assert either defenses and claims when and if it becomes appropriate during this action. Defendant hereby specifically denies any allegations contained in the complaint which were not expressly admitted. WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that upon final trial of this cause, final judgment be entered for defendant and against plaintiffs, that plaintiffs take nothing by their suit, that al l the relief prayed for by plaintiffs be denied, that defendant recover from plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorneys fees and that defendant(s) have other and further relief to which they may show themselves justly entitled . __________________ _______________________ OF COUNSEL: ________________________ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have on this _____ day of __________, ________, served a copy of the foregoing by mailin g same by U. S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and properly addressed, to the following: (List counsel for all parties) _________________________________________