Opinion
No. 03 C 5156
November 14, 2003
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Gulf Insurance Company ("Gulf") has filed its Answer to the Counterclaim brought against it by United National Insurance Company ("United National") in this diversity action. Because Gulf's filing includes some violations of basic provisions applicable to federal pleadings, this memorandum order is issued sua sponte to require Gulf's counsel to cure those flaws.
To begin with, Answer ¶¶ 9 and 14 include an oxymoron: Although Gulf begins by stating a proper disclaimer that conforms to the second sentence of Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 8(b) as the predicate for obtaining a deemed denial of the corresponding allegations of United National's Counterclaim, Gulf mysteriously goes on to say that it denies the very same allegations as to which it has claimed insufficient knowledge or information to form a belief. Accordingly the second sentence of each of Answer ¶¶ 9 and 14 is stricken.
Next, after Answer ¶ 26 admits the allegations in the first sentence of Counterclaim ¶ 26 as to the existence of certain insurance policies, Answer ¶ 26 goes on to say:
Gulf denies the remaining allegations stated in paragraph 26 (which are excerpts of an insurance policy) in that the policies themselves are the best evidence of their content.
That is of course unacceptable, for neither the rules of evidence nor evidentiary principles play any part in the pleading process. That sentence is stricken, and Gulf is duty bound to admit the Counterclaim's allegations as to policy provisions — if, that is, they are accurate.
Finally, a host of Gulf's purported answers — Answer ¶¶ 32 through 38, 40, 41, 43 and 44 — take this form:
Gulf denies the allegations stated in paragraph — in that they state legal conclusions.
That too is impermissible, for legal conclusions are an integral part of the federal notice pleading regime — see App. ¶ 2 toState Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). All of those paragraphs of the Answer are accordingly stricken as well.
Because what has been covered here impacts a substantial number of the paragraphs in the Answer, it would make little sense to call for a partial amendment that would force the reader to have recourse to two documents rather than one to see just what is placed in issue and what is not. For that reason the entire existing Answer will be stricken from the file upon receipt in this Court's chambers, on or before November 25, 2003, of a self-contained Amended Answer to Counterclaim. In the absence of such a timely filing, all of the paragraphs in the Counterclaim to which the earlier-identified defective paragraphs in the Answer purport to respond will be deemed to have been admitted.
Finally, no charge is to be made to Gulf by its counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's own errors. Gulf's counsel are ordered to apprise their client to that effect by letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an informational matter (not for filing).