| Index |
| Previous |
| Next |
| MMA Memorandum |
| Copyright © 2009-2013, Marc CAMPUS |
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OF LAW
CASE: CS 1 Group Legal Office Co. v. MMA and J-Cl. SEYS
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a brief memorandum of law regarding whether defendant’s actions were in accordance
with business practice norms and whether said actions, thereby making such conduct justifiable under applicable law.
ISSUES
Issue I: Whether defendants MMA and Mr. Seys committed bad faith and engaged in unfair business
settlement practices, which resulted in the loss of revenue to plaintiff’s company.
Issue II: Whether defendant Mr. Duchan’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s loss of
revenue.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs CS 1 Group Legal Office Co., representing Texas Riding Co. and Texas Riding Line Co. files this lawsuit
against defendants La Mutuelle du Mans Assurances I.A.R.D (“MMA”) and Jean Claude Seys (“Mr. Seys”), the
president of MMA. Plaintiff’s cause of action arose from defendant Mr. Duchan’s alleged negligent attestation of Mme
Maquard’s will. MMA, the insurance company responsible for indemnifying its insured, was also joined as a
defendant. On September 27, 2004, plaintiffs filed a complaint before the Chambre des Notaires regarding Mr.
Duchan’s negligence. Several weeks later on November 8, 2004 the Chambre des Notaires transmitted a letter to
plaintiffs informing them that defendant MMA was a possible proper defendant. After MMA failed to respond within a
reasonable time, Mrs. Marie Campus, the Director of Texas Riding Co., requested a fascsimile regarding MMA’s
professional indemnity liability file. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney fees for defendant’s
negligence and breach of contract. In essence, plaintiffs are seeking the equitable remedy of restitution. Moreover,
plaintiffs sought to resolve this matter absent litigation. After the defendants refused to act in good faith, March 23,
2006 plaintiffs filed suit before ACAM* to enforce its contractual rights.
*ACAM = "Commission de Contrôle des Assurances" (Control Office of Insurance companies)
ANALYSIS
Issue I: Whether defendants MMA and Mr. Seys committed bad faith and engaged in unfair business
settlement practices, which resulted in the loss of revenue to plaintiff’s company.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action stems from defendant’s MMA and Mr. Seys, as MMA’s president, failure to promptly pay
insurance claims in good faith. An insurance company is required, under applicable law, to negotiate and pay
insurance claims promptly and in good faith. Failure to do so may constitute malfeasance and bad faith; something
actionable. By failing to indemnify within a reasonable time, plaintiff claims MMA committed breach of insurance
contract. Under applicable law, to establish a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must prove the following:
(1) the existence of a contract, (2) the performance by the plaintiff or some justification for nonperformance, (3) the
defendant’s failure to perform, and (4) damages to the plaintiff. Furthermore, Mr. Seys, as president of MMA, has a
duty to ensure that insurance claims brought in good faith are also settled in good faith. Furthermore, when MMA
received its letter from the Chambre des Notaires, it was put on notice of a possible lawsuit and that it was a possible
defendant. Moreover, the Chambre’s letter, in essence, informed MMA of Texas Riding Company’s complaint. With
this knowledge MMA could have indemnified within a reasonable time. However, it failed to do so. Mr. Seys, in his
capacity as president, failed to engage in fair business settlement practices; a negligent act for which
plaintiffs seeks damages. As such, plaintiff has met all necessary elements to prove breach of contract, bad faith,
and unfair business settlement practices by MMA and Mr. Seys.
Issue II: Whether defendant Mr. Duchan’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s loss of
revenue.
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove the elements of negligence, which are: (1)
the existence of a duty by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a casual connection between defendant’s
breach and the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) injury of the plaintiff. As an attorney or someone in a position of trust, Mr.
Duchan had a duty to ensure the will of Mme Maquard conformed to the law. His failure to ensure that all witnesses
were French citizens was an act that a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances would not have done.
Moreover, his failure in doing so constituted a breach of that duty. Furthermore, the invalidity of the will can be
directly traced to his negligence. Plaintiff, Texas Riding Line Co. suffered millions of dollars in damages due to Mr.
Duchan’s negligence. Although the notary also committed negligence, the principle negligence here was committed
by Mr. Duchan. Mr. Duchan also failed to disclose the legal ramifications associated with the nondisclosure of witness
names. Further, Mr. Duchan misrepresented to plaintiffs that his malfeasance, although invalid in France, would be
valid in the United States; a representation believed by plaintiffs which later held not to be true. Therefore, even with
the notary’s negligence, negligible in amount and effect, Mr. Duchan’s negligence was the sole and proximate
cause of plaintiff’s injury. As such, since the Plaintiff has proven all the elements of negligence, the Court should
therefore grant plaintiff’s claim for relief.
CONCLUSION
Although plaintiff has proven its causes of action against defendants, damages, if any, will be on hold until plaintiff
petitions the bankruptcy court** to amend its order allowing payment. Currently, the Court has ruled that any
attempts to enforce, collect, or commence any judgments are permanently enjoined. Furthermore, the Court has
ordered that the UK High Court would have and retain exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit, action, or
claim and to settle any dispute regarding plaintiff’s claim. However, plaintiff may petition that any monies awarded be
held in escrow or trust pending a final determination. The Courts should rule in plaintiff’s favor for its claim of
restitution, a legal remedy allowing plaintiff to be in the position it would have been in but for defendant’s
negligence and breach.
**05-60100 US Bankruptcy Court of NY
ORDER GRANTING RECOGNITION AND RELIEF IN AID OF FOREIGN MAIN PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C.
§§ 1517, 1520 1521 (Dec 7, 2005)
Petition of Jeffrey John Lloyd, as Foreign Representative of United Kingdom Foreign Proceeding respecting United
Kingdom marine insurance Account known as the MMA Account, written by Les Mutuelles du Mans Assurances
IARD, the United Kingdom branch of La Mutuelle du Mans Assurances IARD, f/k/a
Les Mutuelles du Mans IARD, f/k/a
La Mutuelle Générale Française Accidents : Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding.
CASE: CS 1 Group Legal Office Co. v. MMA and J-Cl. SEYS
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a brief memorandum of law regarding whether defendant’s actions were in accordance
with business practice norms and whether said actions, thereby making such conduct justifiable under applicable law.
ISSUES
Issue I: Whether defendants MMA and Mr. Seys committed bad faith and engaged in unfair business
settlement practices, which resulted in the loss of revenue to plaintiff’s company.
Issue II: Whether defendant Mr. Duchan’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s loss of
revenue.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs CS 1 Group Legal Office Co., representing Texas Riding Co. and Texas Riding Line Co. files this lawsuit
against defendants La Mutuelle du Mans Assurances I.A.R.D (“MMA”) and Jean Claude Seys (“Mr. Seys”), the
president of MMA. Plaintiff’s cause of action arose from defendant Mr. Duchan’s alleged negligent attestation of Mme
Maquard’s will. MMA, the insurance company responsible for indemnifying its insured, was also joined as a
defendant. On September 27, 2004, plaintiffs filed a complaint before the Chambre des Notaires regarding Mr.
Duchan’s negligence. Several weeks later on November 8, 2004 the Chambre des Notaires transmitted a letter to
plaintiffs informing them that defendant MMA was a possible proper defendant. After MMA failed to respond within a
reasonable time, Mrs. Marie Campus, the Director of Texas Riding Co., requested a fascsimile regarding MMA’s
professional indemnity liability file. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney fees for defendant’s
negligence and breach of contract. In essence, plaintiffs are seeking the equitable remedy of restitution. Moreover,
plaintiffs sought to resolve this matter absent litigation. After the defendants refused to act in good faith, March 23,
2006 plaintiffs filed suit before ACAM* to enforce its contractual rights.
*ACAM = "Commission de Contrôle des Assurances" (Control Office of Insurance companies)
ANALYSIS
Issue I: Whether defendants MMA and Mr. Seys committed bad faith and engaged in unfair business
settlement practices, which resulted in the loss of revenue to plaintiff’s company.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action stems from defendant’s MMA and Mr. Seys, as MMA’s president, failure to promptly pay
insurance claims in good faith. An insurance company is required, under applicable law, to negotiate and pay
insurance claims promptly and in good faith. Failure to do so may constitute malfeasance and bad faith; something
actionable. By failing to indemnify within a reasonable time, plaintiff claims MMA committed breach of insurance
contract. Under applicable law, to establish a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must prove the following:
(1) the existence of a contract, (2) the performance by the plaintiff or some justification for nonperformance, (3) the
defendant’s failure to perform, and (4) damages to the plaintiff. Furthermore, Mr. Seys, as president of MMA, has a
duty to ensure that insurance claims brought in good faith are also settled in good faith. Furthermore, when MMA
received its letter from the Chambre des Notaires, it was put on notice of a possible lawsuit and that it was a possible
defendant. Moreover, the Chambre’s letter, in essence, informed MMA of Texas Riding Company’s complaint. With
this knowledge MMA could have indemnified within a reasonable time. However, it failed to do so. Mr. Seys, in his
capacity as president, failed to engage in fair business settlement practices; a negligent act for which
plaintiffs seeks damages. As such, plaintiff has met all necessary elements to prove breach of contract, bad faith,
and unfair business settlement practices by MMA and Mr. Seys.
Issue II: Whether defendant Mr. Duchan’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s loss of
revenue.
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove the elements of negligence, which are: (1)
the existence of a duty by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a casual connection between defendant’s
breach and the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) injury of the plaintiff. As an attorney or someone in a position of trust, Mr.
Duchan had a duty to ensure the will of Mme Maquard conformed to the law. His failure to ensure that all witnesses
were French citizens was an act that a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances would not have done.
Moreover, his failure in doing so constituted a breach of that duty. Furthermore, the invalidity of the will can be
directly traced to his negligence. Plaintiff, Texas Riding Line Co. suffered millions of dollars in damages due to Mr.
Duchan’s negligence. Although the notary also committed negligence, the principle negligence here was committed
by Mr. Duchan. Mr. Duchan also failed to disclose the legal ramifications associated with the nondisclosure of witness
names. Further, Mr. Duchan misrepresented to plaintiffs that his malfeasance, although invalid in France, would be
valid in the United States; a representation believed by plaintiffs which later held not to be true. Therefore, even with
the notary’s negligence, negligible in amount and effect, Mr. Duchan’s negligence was the sole and proximate
cause of plaintiff’s injury. As such, since the Plaintiff has proven all the elements of negligence, the Court should
therefore grant plaintiff’s claim for relief.
CONCLUSION
Although plaintiff has proven its causes of action against defendants, damages, if any, will be on hold until plaintiff
petitions the bankruptcy court** to amend its order allowing payment. Currently, the Court has ruled that any
attempts to enforce, collect, or commence any judgments are permanently enjoined. Furthermore, the Court has
ordered that the UK High Court would have and retain exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit, action, or
claim and to settle any dispute regarding plaintiff’s claim. However, plaintiff may petition that any monies awarded be
held in escrow or trust pending a final determination. The Courts should rule in plaintiff’s favor for its claim of
restitution, a legal remedy allowing plaintiff to be in the position it would have been in but for defendant’s
negligence and breach.
**05-60100 US Bankruptcy Court of NY
ORDER GRANTING RECOGNITION AND RELIEF IN AID OF FOREIGN MAIN PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C.
§§ 1517, 1520 1521 (Dec 7, 2005)
Petition of Jeffrey John Lloyd, as Foreign Representative of United Kingdom Foreign Proceeding respecting United
Kingdom marine insurance Account known as the MMA Account, written by Les Mutuelles du Mans Assurances
IARD, the United Kingdom branch of La Mutuelle du Mans Assurances IARD, f/k/a
Les Mutuelles du Mans IARD, f/k/a
La Mutuelle Générale Française Accidents : Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding.
