Mississippi Lawyers Legal Forms Bank

MSLegalforms.com
Copyright 1996, 1997 LawNetCom, Inc.
Sample Defenses Taken from Various Answers
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
2. This Court lacks jurisdiction as Plaintiff seeks
equitable relief and jurisdiction and venue is properly vested in
the Chancery Court of Rankin County, Mississippi.
3. That the Plaintiff is guilty of the Doctrine of Unclean
Hands and is entitled to no relief whatsoever due to Plaintiff's
diversion of funds due to partnership.
4. Punitive damages must not be awarded unless Plaintiff
proves his case beyond a reasonable doubt in the determination of
a unanimous jury.
5. The prayer for punitive damages seeks to impose an
excessive fine within the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause of
the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
6. This Defendant avers that any award of punitive damages
to the Plaintiff in this case would violate the procedural and/or
substantive safeguards provided to the Defendant under the Fifth,
Sixth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States and/or under Article 3, Section 14 and Section
26 of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, in that
punitive damages are penal in nature and, consequently, the
Defendant is entitled to the same procedural and/or substantive
safeguards accorded to criminal defendants.
7. This Defendant avers that it would violate the selfincrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States of America and/or Article 3, Section 26 of the
Constitution of the State of Mississippi, to impose against the
Defendant punitive damages, which are penal in nature, yet compel
the Defendant to disclose potentially incriminating documents and
evidence.
8. This Defendant affirmatively alleges that, inasmuch as
the Plaintiff prays for punitive damages, an award of such damages
should be denied for the reason that such an award violates the
due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment and/or Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and
Article 3, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of
Mississippi in that:
a. Said damages are intended to punish and deter
Defendant and thus this proceeding is essentially criminal in
nature;
b. That Defendant is being compelled to be a witness
against itself in a proceeding essentially and effectively criminal
in nature, in violation of Defendant's right to due process and in

violation of Article 3, Section 14 of the Constitution of the

State of Mississippi, as well as the Fifth Amendment and/or
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
C. That the Plaintiff's burden of proof to establish
punitive damages in this proceeding, effectively criminal in
nature, is less than the burden of proof required in other criminal
proceedings, and thus violated Defendant's right to due process as
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and/or Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States of America and rights under
Article 3, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of
Mississippi;
d. That inasmuch as this proceeding is essentially and
effectively criminal in nature, Defendant is being denied the
requirement of adequate notice of the elements of the offense, and
that the law and authorities authorizing punitive damages are
sufficiently vague and ambiguous so as to be in violation of the
due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and/or Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and in violation of
Article 3, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of
Mississippi; and/or
e. That the awarding of disproportionate judgments
against Defendants who commit similar offenses resulting in similar
injury, but who differ only in material wealth, constitutes an
arbitrary and invidious discrimination prohibited by the equal
protection clause and rights of the Defendant under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and
constitutes impermissible punishment of status.
9. Statue of Frauds-Complaints by the Plaintiff
concerning breach of contract and any allegations flowing therefrom
prohibit any recovery under the Statute of Frauds.
10. Estoppel-Defendant would show that Plaintiff is an
experienced business man that was well aware of the interest he
received and is estopped from denying his written Bill of Sale
attached as Exhibit "A" to the Complaint which evidences the full
extent of his dealings and obligations.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' claims, or parts thereof, are barred by the
doctrine of waiver and estoppel.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' claims, or parts thereof, are barred by the
doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' claims, or parts thereof, are barred by the

Release entered into by ***** and *****, in which ***** released
***** from any cause of action arising out of or relating to the
Letter Agreement attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "A" and the
Limited Partnership Agreement attached to the Complaint as Exhibit
"B".
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The claim of ***** fails claim upon which relief can be
granted.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The claim of ***** for indemnity is barred due to the fact
that ***** did not have a contract with Defendants and ***** had
no right to rely on the alleged representations made by Defendants.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' claims, or parts thereof, are barred due to
fact that there is no causation between the alleged presence
construction debris and the damages sought in the Complaint.
Instead, the alleged damage, if any, to Plaintiffs' property was
caused by other factors.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' claim for an alleged intentional tort, asserted
under Count II of the Complaint, is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' claims are barred due to the fact that *****
substantially completed the work required under the Limited
Partnership Agreement. Moreover, ***** work was accepted, without
reservation, by Plaintiffs and therefore Plaintiffs' claims are
barred.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' entitlement to damages, if any, is limited by
paragraph 3.07 of the Limited Partnership Agreement to the amount
of ***** capital contribution to the Partnership, as agreed to by
***** and *****.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' claims against ***** and ***** fail to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted or are barred due to the
fact that at all times relevant to this action, ***** and *****
were acting within the scope of their respective employment as
authorized agents of *****.
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted against any of these defendants.

SECOND DEFENSE
Defendants Star Insurance Company and Worldwide Weather
Insurance Agency assert the defenses of insufficiency of process
and insufficiency of service of process pursuant to Rules l2(1)(4)
and 12(1,)(5), respectively.
FIRST DEFENSE AND MOTION TO STRIKE
This defendant moves this honorable court pursuant to Miss. R.
Civ. Pro. 12 to strike the words and its liability carrier from
paragraphs 13 and 14 of the complaint as immaterial and impertinent
matter improperly inserting mention of liability insurance in this
action.
SECOND DEFENSE
The facts not having been fully developed, Defendant further
affirmatively pleads the following affirmative defenses as may be
applicable in this action: accord and satisfaction, arbitration and
award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge and
bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud,
illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment,
release, res ludicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations,
waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or
affirmative defense.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
7.
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted and, therefore, should be dismissed.
8.
The incident, which is the subject of this lawsuit
allegedly occurred at Jitney Premier, a subsidiary of Jitney
Jungle Stores of America, Inc. Therefore, the named Defendant
in this action should be "Jitney Jungle Stores of America,
Inc." and not "McCarty-Holman Co., d/b/a Jitney Jungle.
9.
The alleged injuries, if any, and damages, if any, of the
Plaintiff and the derivative injury and damages, if any of the
Plaintiff were proximately caused by a pre-existing condition
or injury and/or by actions of others or events separate,
distinct, unrelated and remote to any action or inaction of
this Defendant, which said separate distinct unrelated actions
of others or events or accidents were the sole proximate cause
of plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any, for which
Defendant cannot be liable, or were such separate intervening
and superseding causes thereof as to absolve Defendant of any
responsibility or liability therefor.
10.
Plaintiffs's negligence was the sole cause or a contributing

cause of the injury.

11.
The injuries of which Plaintiff complains were caused by
Plaintiff's negligence in the following respects:
a. In failing to take reasonable precaution for her own
safety by looking for obstructions on the floor where she
intended to walk; and
b. In failing to keep a proper lookout for her own
safety at the time and place.
12.
Defendant denies each and every allegation of the
Complaint by which Plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon it
and denies that it has been guilty of any actionable conduct
in the premises.
13.
Defendant alleges that it observed and discharged each
and every duty required of it by law and due care.
14.
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's injuries, however
described, resulted solely and proximately from conditions
and/or conduct for which Defendant is not liable or
responsible, and Defendant has no liability in the premises.
FIRST DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
SECOND DEFENSE
The complaint is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
THIRD DEFENSE
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a cause of action against this
defendant upon which relief may be granted, and therefore, it
should be dismissed.
SECOND DEFENSE
The claim is barred by applicable statutes of limitation and
should be dismissed.
FOURTH DEFENSE
Although denying that plaintiffs are entitled to punitive
damages, orany relief whatsoever as against this defendant, this

defendant would affirmatively plead that any assessment of punitive

damages against this defendant would be violative of the provisions
of the Constitution of the United States of America, including the
Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment thereof, and is
violative of the provisions of the Mississippi Constitution,
including Sectino 28 thereof.
FIFTH DEFENSE
Although denying that plaintiffs are entitled to punitive
damages, or any relief whatsoever as against this defendant, this
defendant would affirmatively plead:
1. An award of punitive damages in this civil action would
amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law in
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution;
2. No legislation has been enacted authorizing punitive
damages in a civil action such as this or placing any limit on the
amount of punitive damages awardable;
3. An award of punitive damages in this civil action would
violate the due process provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and of Section 14 of
the Mississippi Constitution;
4. The criteria used for determining whether and in what
amount punitive damages may be awarded are impermissibly vague,
imprecise and inconsistent and are therefore in violation of the
due process provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the Constitution of the United States; and
5. An award of punitive damages in this civil action would
amount to an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States of America and of Section 28
of the Mississippi Constitution.
FIRST DEFENSE
Defendants raise the defenses set forth in Rule (2)(1), (2),
(4), and (5) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure concerning
personal jurisdiction, process and service of process.
SECOND DEFENSE
Defendants allege that venue is improper in the Circuit Court
of Rankin County, Mississippi.
THIRD DEFENSE
Without waiving any defenses set forth in Rule 12 (1)(l), (2),
(3), (4) and (5), defendants will state that plainfiffs have failed
to state a claim against them upon which relief can be granted and
plainfiffs' amended complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule
12(1,)(6) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.
FOURTH DEFENSE
Plainfiffs *, *, * have no standing as plainfiffs in this
matter, and any claim brought on their behalf should be dismissed

pursuant to Rule 12 (1)(6) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil

Procedure.
SIXTH DEFENSE
AND NOW, having fully answered the allegations of the Amended
Complaint filed herein against them, and having denied any
liability in the premises whatsoever, the defendants would set
forth the following special affirmative matters:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries was the
intentional and criminal action of the individuals described in
paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, and such criminal activity
was not reasonably foreseeable by these defendants.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The intentional and criminal conduct of the individuals
described in paragraph 3 of the Complaint was an independent,
intervening and superseding cause which was not and could not
have been reasonably foreseeable by defendants while exercising due
care, so that these defendants have no liability or responsibility
in the premises.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the defendants provided * with a reasonably safe premises
in which to come.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The defendants would affirmatively show that decedent, *, was
negligent on the night of the incident, and that such negligence
was the proximate cause of the shooting and damages suffered by
plaintiffs.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
In the alternative, if it is found that the defendants were
negligent in some degree and if it is also found that the decedent,
*, was negligent, contributing to the proximate cause of
plaintiffs' damages, if any, then damages assessed against these
defendants, if any, should be apportioned to the degree that the
negligence of defendants, if any, contributed to plaintiffs'
damages, according to the Mississippi law of comparative negligence
and Mississippi Code Ann. Section 85-5-7.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Alternatively, although these defendants deny that plaintiffs
are entitled to any judgment against them, the imposition of any
punitive damages would be violative of the Constitution of the
United States of America, including the Fourteenth Amendment
thereof, and violative of the provisions of the Mississippi
Constitution, including Section 28 thereof. Further, an award of
punitive damages would amount to depravation of property without
due process, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution, and Section 14 of the Mississippi

Constitution. The criteria used to determine whether, and in what

amount, punitive damages may be awarded is impermissively vague,
imprecise, inconsistent, and is, therefore, in violation of the
United States and Mississippi Constitutions.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
These defendants deny each and every allegation of the Amended
Complaint by which the plaintiffs seek to impose liability upon
them and deny that they have been guilty of any actionable conduct
in the premises.
DEFENSES
And now having fully answered, Defendants assert the following
affirmative defense:
1.
caused by
Plaintiff
his was a

The injuries sustained by Plaintiff were proximately

his own negligence, alternatively, if the negligence of
was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries, then
proximate contributory cause of the injuries

FIRST DEFENSE
This Count lacks in personal jurisdiction over this defendant
and in accordance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule l2(2), and on account thereof, this action should be dismissed
as against this defendant.
SECOND DEFENSE
There is insufficiency of process and insufficiency service of
process against this defendant and in accordance with the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule l2(4) and Rule l2(5),
and on account thereof, this action should be dismissed as against
this defendant.
AND NOW, having denied any liability whatsoever to the
Plaintiff in the premises, this defendant would set forth the
following Special Affirmative Matters.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This defendant denies each and every material allegation of
the Complaint filed herein against it by Plaintiff by which
Plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon it and affirmatively
pleads that it was/is guilty of no act or omission in the premises
and was/is in no way negligent, strictly liable or in breach of any
warranty, and is in no way tiable to Plaintiff herein.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This action is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation
and governing substantive laws of the State of Mississippi.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to observe and/or exercise ordinary care and
prudence for his own safety and personal well being, such conduct
or omission being the sole proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries

or damages. Alternatively, said negligence was a proximate

contributing cause of the alleged injuries or damages, if any, and
Plaintiff's recovery, if any, must be reduced accordingly.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any, were solely
and proximately caused by the acts or omissions of others for whom
this defendant is neither liable nor responsible.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's alleged injures, if any, were proximately and
solely caused by an independent, efficient and/or intervening cause
or causes, for whom or for which this defendant is neither liable
nor responsible.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's harm and damages, if any, were caused by the
misuse or improper use, or improper maintenance of the product
described in the Complaint with such misuse or improper use or
maintenance being the sole proximate cause, or alternatively a
proximate contributing cause, of the injuries or damages allegedly
sustained by Plaintiff.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the product described in the Complaint was not in the
same condition at the time of the accident as it was when it left
this defendant's hands, said product having been materially
altered, changed, misused or modified subsequenfly to its leaving
this defendant's custody, possession and control.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That when the product described in the Complaint left the
possession of this defendant it was reasonably fit and safe for the
purposes for which it was intended, contained no defects, was not
defective, and no danger existed in using said product in the
manner or for the purposes for which it was designed and intended
to be used. Furthermore, when the product in question left the
possession of this defendant it was merchantable and reasonably fit
and safe for the purpose for which it was designed, manufactured
and intended.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That
Plaintiff
which was
have been
care.

any condition contained in the product in question which

contends proximately caused his alleged injuries was one
open and obvious and known to the Plaintiff or should
known by him in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

This defendant pleads and seeks all fights available to it in

accordance with Section 85-5-7 of the Miss. Code Ann.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

That this defendant was not negligent in any manner or at any

time in the design, manufacture or sale of the product in question,
said product being reasonably safe for use in that said product was
manufactured and designed in accordance with the appropriate
standards and accepted practices in the industry.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the product in question was designed and manufactured in
accordance with the standards of the industry at the time of the
design and manufacture of said product, and all state of the art
defenses are hereby interposed to preclude Inability.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The awarding and/or assessment of punitive damages violates
Article III, Section 28 of the Constitution of the State of
Mississippi, and the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States, both of which prohibit the imposition of excessive
fines.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The awarding and/or assessment of punitive damages violates
Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of
Mississippi, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States, both of which guarantee to its citizens due
process of law.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant hereby gives notice that it intends to rely upon
such other and further defenses as may become available to it or
apparent during the discovery of this civil action, and reserves
the fight to amend its answer to assert any such defenses.
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted against this Defendant and fails to state a cause of
action against this Defendant.
SECOND DEFENSE
While this Defendant is not liable to the Plaintiff for each
and all of the reasons contained and set forth in this Answer,
and while the Complaint does not expressly seek punitive damages,
this Defendant says further that in any event punitive damages may
not be sought in the instant action for the reason that this
action was not commenced within the time prescribed by Section
15-l-33 and 15-1-35 of the Mississippi Code of 1972, which said
statutes are statutes of limitations and a bar insofar as punitive
damages are concerned.
THIRD DEFENSE
While Plaintiff may not recover punitive damages against this
Defendant for each and all of the reasons contained and set forth
to the extent the Complaint seeks punitive or exemplary damages,

the Complaint violates the Defendant's right to substantive and

procedural due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and in Section 14 of
the Mississippi Constitution; (c) the scheme of punitive damages
as implemented in Mississippi violates the Defendant's right to
equal protection under the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (d) to the
extent the Complaint seeks punitive damages, thereby subjecting
Defendant to criminal sanctions through punitive damages, the
burden of proof required to impose such damages should be beyond
reasonable doubt and should also be in accordance with the
requirements and protections of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and in
accordance with the applicable sections of the Constitution
of the State of Mississippi, including, but not limited to,
Sections 14, 17, 26, and 28.
FIFTH DEFENSE
This Defendant is a graduate of a recognized school of
medicine, has experience in the practice of his profession and is
possessed of a degree of learning, skill and experience ordinarily
possessed by others of his profession in good standing engaged in
the same general line of practice of anesthesiology. Said
Defendant at all times herein exercised reasonable and ordinary
care and diligence in the exertion of his skill and application of
his knowledge, employed customary and approved methods of treatment
and exerted his best judgment as to the treatment of the said
Plaintiff. Said Defendant at all times herein possessed and used
such reasonable diligence, skill, competence and prudence as a ***.
SIXTH DEFENSE
Answering still further, this Defendant states that although
he specifically denies he was, or could be, guilty of any
negligence or liability as alleged in the Complaint, this
Defendant says there is no causal connection between the condition
of said Plaintiff and the alleged negligence of this Defendant.
Rather, this Defendant says that the condition of said Plaintiff
was and is the sole proximate result of conditions, causes,
illnesses and circumstances which were in no way caused by, or
related to, any alleged act or alleged omission of this Defendant.
THIRD DEFENSE
As a matter of law, Defendants are not liable for punitive
damages.
FOURTH DEFENSE
No legislation has been enacted authorizing punitive damages
in a civil action such as this, and no legislation has been enacted
placing any limit on the amount of punitive damages.
FIFTH DEFENSE
The concept, threat, imposition or award of punitive damages
against Defendant in this action is and would be contrary to and
violate the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the

State of Mississippi. Specifically, but not by way of limitation:

1. The judicial decisions and laws of Mississippi with
regard to liability, vel non, for punitive damages in similar
claims are so nebulous, vague, uncertain, ambiguous, inconsistent
and contradictory that:
a. Said judicial decisions and laws fail to give or communicate fair notice of the nature and character of the punishable
conduct or behavior, all in violation of the Due Process Clause of
Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution and Article 3,
Section 14, of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, and
the rights of this Defendant pursuant to said constitutional
provisions;
b. Said judicial decisions and laws do not and would not
provide a jury with an adequate, meaningful or intelligible
guidelines for determining in this action, or any action, the
conditions or circumstances under which punitive damages may or may
not be awarded, and, in addition, said judicial decisions and laws
would foster, encourage and promote the arbitrary, capricious,
unpredictable and discriminatory award of punitive damages, all in
violation of the Due Process Clause of Amendment XIV of the
United States Constitution and Article 3, Section 14, of the
Constitution of the State of Mississippi, and the rights of this
Defendant pursuant to said constitutional provisions;
c. Said judicial decisions and laws violate the doctrine of
void for vagueness under and pursuant to Amendment XIV of the
United States Constitution and the rights of this Defendant
pursuant thereto; and
d. Said judicial decisions and laws offend traditional notations of fair play and substantial justice in violation of
Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution and the rights of
these Defendants pursuant thereto.
2. To subject Defendant to and impose upon Defendant an
award of punitive damages would constitut!e the infliction of cruel
and unusual punishment in violation of Amendment VIII of the
Constitution of the United States and Article 3, Section 28, of the
Constitution of the State of Mississippi, and the rights of
Defendant pursuant to said constitutional provisions.
3. To subject Defendant to or impose on Defendants an award
of punitive damages based upon financial standing would violate the
Equal Protection clause of Amendment XIV of the United States
Constitution.
4. To subject Defendant to or impose on Defendant an award
of punitive damages would constitute an excessive fine in violation
of Amendment VIII of the United States Constitution and Article 3,
Section 14, of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi.
SIXTH DEFENSE
The concept of punitive damages, which are tantamount to and
essentially criminal sanctions, fines or penalties, in a civil
action and with regard to an alleged civil wrong is contrary to
public policy and, therefore, such damages cannot be awarded in a

civil action or with regard to an alleged civil wrong.

SEVENTH DEFENSE
No punitive assessment can be imposed against Defendant in the
absence of clear and convincing proof of punitive liability as
required by the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and Article 3, Section 14, of the
Mississippi Constitution of 1890 aYd as further required by
Mississippi common law.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
If Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is specifically
denied, said damages were proximately caused or contributed to by
acts or omissions of persons other than this Defendant, for which
this Defendant has no liability.
NINTH DEFENSE
Any representations or misrepresentations made by persons
other than this Defendant to the Plaintiff, are not legally
binding on this Defendant and this Defendant cannot be held liable
therefor.
TENTH DEFENSE
The subject policy of insurance lapsed and was not in force or
effect due to failure to pay premiums due and owing thereunder.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
Defendant herein asserts and affirms any and all other
defenses to which it may be entitled under any policy of insurance
allegedly issued by it and for any policy allegedly in effect at
the time of the loss complained of in the Complaint.
through newforms3