American National Property and Casualty Company v. Stutte et al

Filing 37

MOTION to file 20 Answer to Complaint Second Amended Counterclaim by Carol Ann Stutte, Laura Jean Stutte. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Hardin, Jonathan) Modified text on 2/22/2012 (ADA).

EXHIBIT 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY
AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant,
v.
CAROL ANN STUTTE; LAURA JEAN
STUTTE,
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs,
and
CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3:11-CV-219

ANSWER ANDSECOND AMENDED
COUNTERCLAIM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants Carol Ann Stutte and Laura Jean Stutte (collectively, the “Stuttes”), by their
attorneys, hereby answer the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Plaintiff American National
Property And Casualty Company (“ANPAC”), and assert a counterclaim against Plaintiff
American National Property And Casualty Company (“ANPAC”).1
THE STUTTES’ SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST ANPAC
The Stuttes bring this second amended counterclaim against ANPAC pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 1315 (a) and 13(e), and in support thereof, state as follows:

1

The Stuttes have already submitted an answer to ANPAC’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 20), and to the
extent required, the Stuttes incorporate their prior answer as if fully set forth herein.

Nature of Action
1.

This is a civil action for damages and declaratory relief arising from ANPAC’s

refusal to pay the Stuttes’ claim under a homeowners insurance policy for losses and additional
living expenses resulting from the destruction of the Stuttes’ home and its contents by fire at
approximately 8:00 p.m. on September 4, 2010.
The ANPAC Homeowners Policy
2.

The

Stuttes

purchased

Tennessee

Special

Homeowners

Policy

No.

41-H-V66-965-7 (the “Policy”) from ANPAC. The Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3.

The Policy insures, among other things, the Stuttes’ home, other structures, and

personal property located at 2715 Highway 360, Vonore, Monroe County, Tennessee (“home” or
“home and contents”) for the period from June 10, 2010 to June 10, 2011.
4.

Under the terms of the Policy, ANPAC is obligated to pay for “accidental direct

physical loss” – including loss caused by fire – to the Stuttes’ home and contents, subject to the
applicable coverage limits set forth in the Policy.
5.

Under the terms of the Policy, ANPAC is also obligated to reimburse the Stuttes’

“additional living expenses” for a period of up to 36 months if a covered loss renders their home
uninhabitable, subject to the applicable coverage limits set forth in the Policy.
The Fire and the Stuttes’ Claim
6.

At approximately 3:00 p.m. on September 4, 2010, the Stuttes, their daughter, and a

family friend departed the Stuttes’ home for a planned vacation to Nashville, Tennessee.
7.

Upon arriving in Nashville that same day, the Stuttes and their travel companions

checked into the Holiday Inn Express Hotel and Suites at 714 Spence Lane in the southeast part of
town.

2

8.

That same evening, the Stuttes and their travel companions drove into downtown

Nashville, parked their car at the NCB Garage, and went to dinner at the Wildhorse Saloon.
9.

At approximately 8:00 p.m., while at the restaurant, the Stuttes were informed by

telephone that their home was on fire. Carol Ann Stutte then spoke by telephone with a member of
the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office, who confirmed that the Stuttes’ home was fully engulfed in
flames.
10.

The fire completely destroyed the Stuttes’ home and contents and rendered their

home uninhabitable.
11.

The Stuttes timely noticed an insurance claim under the Policy for approximately

$300,000.
12.

The Stuttes provided ANPAC with documentary and testimonial evidence from

multiple sources and witnesses, all of which confirmed that the Stuttes and all other members of
their household were physically present in Nashville, Tennessee, approximately 200 miles away
from their home, at the time of the fire. The evidence provided to ANPAC included a parking
receipt from NCB Garage dated “SEP 4” and time-stamped “19:30” (7:30 p.m.), receipts for
admission to the Wildhorse Saloon dated “9/4/2010” and time-stamped “19:48” (7:48 p.m.) and
“19:49” (7:49 p.m.), and a dinner receipt from the Wildhorse Saloon dated “9/4/2010” and
time-stamped “20:25” (8:25 p.m.).
13.

The Stuttes also provided ANPAC with a copy of an Incident Report from the

Monroe County Sherriff’s Office dated August 9, 2010. The report describes an incident that
occurred on August 6, 2010 – approximately one month before the fire – in which the Stuttes’
neighbor, Janice Millsaps, threatened, among other things, to burn down the Stuttes’ home. The

3

Stuttes have filed a civil lawsuit against Ms. Millsaps in the Chancery Court for Monroe County,
Tennessee, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
14.

The Stuttes also provided ANPAC with documentary evidence showing that, at the

time of the fire, the Stuttes had good credit, they were not suffering any financial distress, and that
they had no motive – financial or otherwise – to cause the destruction of their home and contents.
15.

Since the fire rendered their home uninhabitable, the Stuttes have incurred, and

continue to incur, additional living expenses as defined by the Policy. The Stuttes have timely
provided, and continue to provide, ANPAC with documentation of these expenses. As of June 1,
2011, the Stuttes’ unreimbursed additional living expenses totaled approximately $5,000.
16.

At ANPAC’s request, the Stuttes have paid, and continue to pay, for electricity and

security lights at the site where their home used to stand.
17.

The Stuttes have timely paid, and continue to pay, all mortgage payments due on

their home to Defendant Chase Home Finance, LLC, and all insurance payments due on their
home and contents to ANPAC.
The Coverage Dispute
18.

ANPAC denied the Stuttes’ insurance claim by letter dated May 12, 2011. That

same day, ANPAC filed its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in this Court.
19.

ANPAC’s denial letter and Complaint falsely accused the Stuttes of intentionally

causing the fire that destroyed their home and contents, and of committing concealment or fraud
relating to their insurance claim. ANPAC did not cite any other basis for refusing to honor its
obligations under the Policy.
20.

ANPAC did not cite or plead any specific facts in support of its coverage denial.

The denial letter and Complaint stated only that “[i]t was determined through investigation that the

4

preponderance of the evidence” supported ANPAC’s allegations. ANPAC therefore failed to
explain how and why it determined that the Stuttes intentionally caused the fire, despite the fact
that ANPAC had evidence in its possession proving that the Stuttes were about 200 miles away
from their home when it burned down, and identifying a suspect who had harassed the Stuttes and
specifically threatened to burn down their home in the months leading up to the fire.
21.

By letter dated May 19, 2011, the Stuttes requested copies of the information on

which ANPAC based its denial of their insurance claim. ANPAC did not respond to the Stuttes’
request.
22.

Instead, on May 20, 2011, the Stuttes received a two-sentence letter from ANPAC

stating that the Policy had been cancelled, effective on September 4, 2010 at 12:01 a.m., which is
approximately 20 hours before the Stuttes’ home and contents were destroyed by fire.
23.

Two weeks earlier, on May 6, 2011, ANPAC had sent the Stuttes a “Notice of

Premium Due” on their destroyed home and contents for the period from June 10, 2011 to June 10,
2012. By this notice, ANPAC had attempted to renew the Policy and increase the Stuttes’
premium by nearly 30 percent due to a recent negative entry on their credit report, which was a
direct result of the financial strain on the Stuttes caused by ANPAC’s failure to pay their claim.
24.

The Stuttes dispute ANPAC’s denial of coverage and cancellation of the Policy.

25.

The Stuttes have timely paid all premiums due and have complied or substantially

complied with all other pertinent terms and conditions of the Policy.
ANPAC’s Shoddy and One-Sided Claims Investigation
26.

ANPAC purports to have conducted an “extensive and thorough” investigation of

the Stuttes’ insurance claim. See ANPAC’s Mem. 12 (Dkt. No. 28). ANPAC, however, showed a

5

lack of diligence and care in conducting its investigation, which ultimately concluded that the
Stuttes had committed arson and insurance fraud.
A.

ANPAC’s Failure to Consider Cell Phone Records Establishing the Stuttes’
Whereabouts at the Time of the Fire.

27.

In response to ANPAC’s requests during its claims investigation, Carol Ann and

Laura Stutte provided ANPAC with, among other things, written authorization to obtain any and
all of the their cellular phone, telephone and toll-call records in order to investigate the Stuttes’
insurance claim.
28.

On October 25, 2011, ANPAC filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in this

Court. In the accompanying documents, ANPAC claimed that Carol Ann and Laura Stutte had
lied to ANPAC about their whereabouts on the night of the fire. The sole evidence offered by
ANPAC in support of this assertion was the analysis of its purported expert in “Historic Cellular
Reconstruction” named Kevin Levy. Mr. Levy stated that he had examined the Stuttes’ cell phone
data and concluded that “there is no conclusive evidence supported by Netwrok [sic] Connectivity
Records to demonstarte [sic] that eith [sic] Carol Ann Stutte or Laura Stutte ever travelled to
Nashville, TN on 09/04/10 or returned from Nashville, TN on 09/05/10.” See Dkt. No. 28-10, p. 5.
29.

The October 8, 2010 cellular phone records of both Carol Ann and Laura Stutte,

however, are consistent with the other documentary and testimonial evidence provided to ANPAC
and clearly demonstrate that Carol Ann and Laura Stutte were in Nashville at the time of the fire.
The October 8, 2010 cellular phone records, which were available to ANPAC but which ANPAC
apparently declined or neglected to obtain, fatally undermine the conclusion of ANPAC’s
purported expert.
30.

On January 30, 2012, the Stuttes’ counsel contacted ANPAC’s counsel of record,

Messrs. N. Mark Kinsman and Russell E. Reviere, to bring the October 8, 2010 phone records to

6

ANPAC’s attention and to request that ANPAC therefore acknowledge its coverage obligations to
the Stuttes by February 10, 2012. At the time of this filing, ANPAC has failed, neglected, or
refused to respond to this letter, and ANPAC continues to refuse to pay the Stuttes’ claim and
continues to accuse the Stuttes of arson and insurance fraud.
B.

ANPAC’s Private Investigator Only Looked for Information Fitting with
ANPAC’s Theory that the Stuttes Committed Arson and Were Liars.

31.

During its claims investigation, ANPAC retained a private investigator named

Gary Noland.
32.

Mr. Noland conducted a slanted investigation. Rather than seeking the truth, he

sought only to find evidence to support ANPAC’s theory that the Stuttes lied about going to
Nashville and about having no involvement in the fire. He ignored and did not want to see any
evidence that contradicted that unfounded theory. For example, when Mr. Noland was presented
with a collection of documents pertinent to his investigation, including cell phone records which
would not have been otherwise available to him, he paged through them for less than a minute and
then declined a witness’s offer to make him copies.
33.

Likewise, when Mr. Noland was offered the opportunity to review time-stamped

photos of the Stuttes in Nashville around the time of the fire, he declined to even look at them and
did not request copies.
34.

On information and belief, there are other examples of ANPAC’s shoddy and

one-sided investigation.

7

COUNT ONE
(Breach of Contract – asserted by Carol Ann and Laura Stutte)
35.

26.

The Stuttes hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 2534 of this

counterclaim, as if fully set forth herein.
36.

27.

ANPAC has breached its contractual duties under the Policy to pay

for the loss to the Stuttes’ home and contents, and for the unreimbursed additional living expenses
already incurred by the Stuttes.
37.

28.

As a direct result of this breach of contract, the Stuttes have been

and will be deprived of the benefits of the insurance coverage for which the Stuttes paid premiums.
38.

29.

As a further direct result of this breach of contract, the Stuttes have

been forced to incur and will continue to incur additional consequential damages, including,
without limitation, attorneys’ fees and other expenses in defending this litigation and attempting to
obtain coverage under the Policy, lost earnings on amounts wrongfully withheld by ANPAC, and
damage to their credit due to the financial strain caused by ANPAC’s breach, which damages are
not subject to the Policy’s limits of liability.
COUNT TWO
(Declaratory Judgment – asserted by Carol Ann and Laura Stutte)
39.

30.

The Stuttes hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 2938 of this

counterclaim, as if fully set forth herein.
40.

31.

ANPAC has denied the Stuttes’ insurance claim and cancelled the

Policy, thereby disclaiming ANPAC’s ongoing obligation to reimburse the Stuttes’ additional
living expenses as they accrue for up to 36 months after the date of the loss.
41.

32.

The Stuttes will continue to incur additional living expenses as

defined by the Policy.

8

42.

33.

An actual controversy of a justiciable nature presently exists

between the Stuttes and ANPAC concerning the existence of the Policy and the ongoing rights and
obligations of the parties with respect to coverage for additional living expenses. Accordingly, the
Stuttes request a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. and Rule 57 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, declaring such rights and obligations.

The issuance of

declaratory relief by this Court will terminate some or all of the existing controversy among the
parties.
COUNT THREE
(Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101 et seq. – asserted by
Carol Ann and Laura Stutte)
43.

34.

The Stuttes hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 3342 of this

counterclaim, as if fully set forth herein.
44.

35.

ANPAC has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by

denying coverage for the Stuttes’ claim, cancelling the Policy, and filing this coverage action
based on allegations ANPAC knows, or should know, to be false, in an effort to avoid its
obligations under the Policy.
45.

36.

Specifically, ANPAC accused the Stuttes of destroying their home

and contents, and of committing concealment or fraud relating to their claim, even though ANPAC
knew, or should have known, that these allegations were false based on evidence in its possession
concerning the Stuttes whereabouts at the time of the fire.
46.

37.

As a direct result of these unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the

Stuttes have suffered and continue to suffer the ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or other
things of value, including, without limitation, insurance proceeds for the loss to their home and
contents and additional living expenses, attorneys’ fees and other expenses in defending this

9

litigation and attempting to obtain coverage under the Policy, lost earnings on the amounts
wrongfully withheld by ANPAC, and damage to their credit. In addition, the Stuttes are entitled to
recover treble damages, up to three times the actual damages they have sustained, pursuant to
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(3).
COUNT FOUR
(Bad Faith Refusal to Pay, Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-105 – asserted by Carol Ann and Laura
Stutte)
47.

38.

The Stuttes hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 3746 of this

Counterclaim, as if fully set forth herein.
48.

39.

After a fire completely destroyed their home and contents on

September 4, 2010, the Stuttes timely noticed an insurance claim for the loss under ANPAC
Special Homeowners Policy No. 41-H-V66-965-7, at which point the Policy, by its terms, became
due and payable.
49.

40.

By letter to ANPAC dated May 19, 2011, the Stuttes made a formal

demand for payment under the Policy and provided notice that, if ANPAC did not pay the Stuttes’
claim for the loss and their additional living expenses within sixty (60) days, the Stuttes would
pursue a bad faith penalty claim under Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7-105. This formal
demand letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
50.

41.

The Stuttes waited more than sixty (60) days before filing this

counterclaim for bad faith, during which time ANPAC did not respond to the Stuttes’ formal
demand or pay the Stuttes’ claim.
51.

42.

ANPAC’s refusal to pay the Stuttes’ insurance claim was not in

good faith. The only bases for ANPAC’s refusal were its allegations that the Stuttes intentionally
caused the fire and committed concealment or fraud relating to their claim. Upon information and
belief, ANPAC’s investigation and claims handling did not yield sufficient legitimate grounds to
10

support its conclusory allegations.

To the contrary, ANPAC discovered documentary and

testimonial evidence from multiple sources confirming that the Stuttes were approximately 200
miles away from their home at the time of the fire and, therefore, they could not have set the fire.
The Stuttes also provided ANPAC with documentary evidence showing that, at the time of the fire,
the Stuttes had good credit, they were not suffering any financial distress, and they had no motive
– financial or otherwise – to cause the destruction of their home and contents. Upon information
and belief, ANPAC’s investigator also ignored or refused to view additional documentary and
testimonial evidence that tended to refute ANPAC’s belief that the Stuttes were responsible for the
fire.
52.

43.

ANPAC acted in bad faith by, inter alia, delaying for months after

discovering evidence that exonerated the Stuttes, refusing to consider evidence supporting the
Stuttes’ innocence, failing to reimburse the Stuttes’ in full for their additional living expenses,
denying the Stuttes’ claim and cancelling the Policy, and by filing the present litigation—all
without sufficient legitimate grounds, and without providing any specific factual support for these
actions. Because ANPAC has failed to provide any specific factual support for its refusal to
payFurthermore, ANPAC also acted in bad faith by continuing to refuse to pay the Stuttes’ claim
even after it was provided with cellular phone records categorically disproving ANPAC’s
allegation that the Stuttes lied about their whereabouts on the night of the fire. Because ANPAC
has refused to disclose the full scope of its investigation, including any additional defects in its
alleged evidence, the Stuttes reserve their right, based on facts discovered during the course of this
litigation, to assert that additional actions taken by ANPAC constitute bad faith under Tenn. Code
Ann. § 56-7-105.

11

53.

44.

As a direct result of ANPAC’s bad faith refusal to pay, the Stuttes

have suffered additional expenses, losses, and injuries, including, without limitation, attorneys’
fees and other expenses in attempting to obtain coverage under the Policy and in defending this
litigation, lost earnings on the amounts wrongfully withheld by ANPAC, damage to their credit,
and emotional distress.
COUNT FIVE
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress – asserted by Carol Ann Stutte)
54.

The Stuttes hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Counterclaim, as if

fully set forth herein.
55.

Under applicable law, ANPAC had a duty to Defendant Carol Ann Stutte to

exercise ordinary care and diligence while conducting its investigation.

This duty was

independent of ANPAC’s contractual duties and included the obligation to perform a complete,
diligent, and good faith investigation before accusing her of criminal activity.
56.

Given the sensitivity of ANPAC’s ultimate conclusion reached, i.e., that she had

committed arson and insurance fraud, ANPAC had a heightened duty of care to Defendant Carol
Ann Stutte while conducting its investigation.
57.

ANPAC breached its duty of care by conducting an incomplete and biased

investigation and by continuing to accuse the Carol Ann Stutte of arson and insurance fraud even
when directly confronted with evidence proving that the Stuttes were in Nashville at the time of the
fire, as further alleged above.
58.

Defendant Carol Ann Stutte has suffered and continues to suffer physical and

serious or severe mental injuries as a result of ANPAC’s breach of duty, including emotional
distress, high blood pressure, depression, and sleeping problems. ANPAC’s breach of duty was
the cause in fact and proximate cause of these injuries.

12

59.

Given the severity of ANPAC’s accusations against Carol Ann Stutte and

ANPAC’s egregious mishandling of its investigation over the course of nearly one and half years,
the injuries to Carol Ann Stutte were reasonably foreseeable. ANPAC knew or should have known
that its conduct would inflict serious or severe mental and physical injuries upon Carol Ann Stutte.
COUNT SIX
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress – asserted by Laura Stutte)
60.

The Stuttes hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 59 of this Counterclaim, as if

fully set forth herein.
61.

Under applicable law, ANPAC had a duty to Defendant Laura Stutte to exercise

ordinary care and diligence while conducting its investigation. This duty was independent of
ANPAC’s contractual duties and included the obligation to perform a complete, diligent, and good
faith investigation before accusing her of criminal activity.
62.

Given the sensitivity of ANPAC’s ultimate conclusion reached, i.e., that she had

committed arson and insurance fraud, ANPAC had a heightened duty of care to Defendant Laura
Stutte while conducting its investigation.
63.

ANPAC breached its duty of care by conducting an incomplete and biased

investigation and by continuing to accuse Laura Stutte of arson and insurance fraud even when
directly confronted with evidence proving that the Stuttes were in Nashville at the time of the fire,
as further alleged above.
64.

Defendant Laura Stutte has suffered and continues to suffer physical and serious or

severe mental injuries as a result of ANPAC’s breach of duty, including emotional distress,
depression, and anxiety. ANPAC’s breach of duty was the cause in fact and proximate cause of
these injuries.

13

65.

Given the severity of ANPAC’s accusations against Laura Stutte and ANPAC’s

egregious mishandling of its investigation over the course of nearly one and half years, the injuries
to Laura Stutte were reasonably foreseeable. ANPAC knew or should have known that its conduct
would inflict serious or severe mental and physical injuries upon Laura Stutte.
COUNT SEVEN
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – asserted by Carol Ann Stutte)
66.

The Stuttes hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Counterclaim, as if

fully set forth herein.
67.

ANPAC acted as described herein in an intentional or reckless manner and in

deliberate disregard of the high degree of probability that Defendant Carol Ann Stutte would suffer
serious or severe mental and physical injuries due to such conduct.
68.

The actions and omissions of ANPAC were so outrageous that such conduct is not

tolerated by civilized society. Among other things, publicly accusing Carol Ann Stutte of arson
and insurance fraud despite ANPAC’s knowledge of specific evidence exonerating her of such
charges is conduct so extreme and outrageous that is beyond the bounds of decency in our society.
69.

As a direct and proximate result of ANPAC’s outrageous conduct, Defendant Carol

Ann Stutte has suffered and continues to suffer serious or severe mental and physical injuries,
including emotional distress, high blood pressure, depression, and sleeping problems.
COUNT EIGHT
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – asserted by Laura Stutte)
70.

The Stuttes hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 69 of this Counterclaim, as if

fully set forth herein.
71.

ANPAC acted as described herein in an intentional or reckless manner and in

deliberate disregard of the high degree of probability that Defendant Laura Stutte would suffer
serious or severe mental and physical injuries due to such conduct.
14

72.

The actions and omissions of ANPAC were so outrageous that such conduct is not

tolerated by civilized society. Among other things, publicly accusing Laura Stutte of arson and
insurance fraud despite ANPAC’s knowledge of specific evidence exonerating her of such charges
is conduct so extreme and outrageous that is beyond the bounds of decency in our society.
73.

As a direct and proximate result of ANPAC’s outrageous conduct, Defendant

Laura Stutte has suffered and continues to suffer serious or severe mental and physical injuries,
including emotional distress, depression, and anxiety.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, the Stuttes respectfully request that the Court enter judgment:
(a)

Awarding the Stuttes actual compensatory and consequential damages sustained
as a result of ANPAC’s breach of contract and, ANPAC’s unfair or deceptive acts
or practices, and ANPAC’s negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress on Carol Ann Stutte and Laura Stutte;

(b)

Declaring that ANPAC has a continuing obligation under the Policy to provide
coverage for the Stuttes’ additional living expenses as they accrue;

(c)

Awarding the Stuttes treble damages equal to three times the amount of the actual
compensatory and consequential damages suffered as a result of ANPAC’s unfair
or deceptive acts or practices;

(d)

Awarding the Stuttes a sum not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the
liability for the loss, in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-105;

(e)

Awarding Carol Ann Stutte and Laura Stutte punitive damages in amounts to be
determined at trial;

(ef)

Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses and costs incurred by the
Stuttes in defending and prosecuting this litigation; and

(fg)

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.2

2

The Stuttes also reserve their right to bring additional claims, including, without limitation, for
defamation, and fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, against ANPAC based on
facts discovered in the course of this litigation.

15

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
The Stuttes request a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: August 10, 2011 February 15, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Seth A. Tucker
Seth A. Tucker (pro hac vice)
Scott J. Levitt (pro hac vice)
Jonathan G. Hardin (pro hac vice)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004-2401
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Peter J. Alliman (BPR No. 5984)
WHITE, CARSON & ALLIMAN, P.C.
135 College Street
Madisonville, TN 37354
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Carol Ann Stutte
and Laura Jean Stutte

16