Message-ID: <6362324.1075853274009.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:23:00 -0800 (PST)
From: richard.sanders@enron.com
To: bonnie.white@enron.com
Subject: Re: FW: Michael Aussem v. Nepco etal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Richard B Sanders
X-To: Bonnie White
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Richard_Sanders_Oct2001\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: rsanders.nsf

Thanks for the update. Andy will be handling this one.



	Bonnie White/ENRON@enronXgate
	03/19/2001 10:40 AM
		 
		 To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrew Edison/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: 
		 Subject: FW: Michael Aussem v. Nepco etal



 -----Original Message-----
From:  White, Bonnie  
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:38 AM
To: Cole, Rob
Cc: Robichaux, Lisa; Cheek, Charles; Vote, Robert
Subject: RE: Michael Aussem v. Nepco etal

Rob, Actually I sent out a demand letter, modelled on the demand letter you 
sent in the Glen Rice case, last Wednesday.   I thought that a copy had been 
sent to you, and I apologize if it has not.  (Lisa will be getting a copy to 
you this morning.)  I understood that you were on vacation and that Bob was 
going to be out on vacation on Thursday and Friday.  Because of the problem 
with CT and the possibility that our answer date would be as soon as this 
Thursday, 3/22, I didn't think it should wait until today.  When the service 
of process came in, I spoke with Andy Edison about it, he advised me of the 
Glen Rice matter, I pulled the file which included a copies of the contract, 
the certificate of insurance for Feb 2000-Feb 2001, and your demand letter.  
I asked Lisa to get the 1999-2000 certificate of insurance, which we received 
on Wednesday. We then sent out the demand.  On Friday, I spoke with Chuck, 
who had spoken with Jim Studdert, and I suggested that, with Jim's and your 
concurrence, Bob handle the matter along with the Glen Rice matter, since I 
fully expect that the defense/indemnity demand will be accepted and I suspect 
the same outside counsel will be appointed.  In the meantime, I called and 
spoke with the plaintiff's counsel re the service problem with CT and that we 
had only recently received notice of the suit.  He agreed on an answer date 
of May 1st, which I am hopeful will give enough time for the 
defense/indemnity situation to be resolved.  I have asked Lisa to draft a 
Rule 11 agreement re the extended answer date which will be sent out today, 
and I anticipate that you, Lisa, and Bob will handle the matter from here.

Please let me know if you have any questions re any of the above.  Thanks. 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Cole, Rob  
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:30 AM
To: Robichaux, Lisa
Cc: Cooper, Monique; Bolar-Softich, Anthony; White, Bonnie; Vote, Robert; 
Studdert, James; Cole, Rob
Subject: RE: Michael Aussem v. Nepco etal

Will this matter be going to Bob, as suggested?  Please advise.  Thanks,

Rob




From: Lisa Robichaux/ENRON@enronXgate on 03/19/2001 08:24 AM
To: Rob Cole/HOU/ECT@ECT, Monique Cooper/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Anthony Bolar-Softich/ENRON@enronXgate, Bonnie White/ENRON@enronXgate, 
Robert Vote/ENRON@enronXgate, James P Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: RE: Michael Aussem v. Nepco etal

Rob, in your absence, Bonnie White made demand on Morrison on Friday.  A copy 
will be forthcoming to you.  Monique provided a copy of the applicable COI.  
Sorry you were not kept in the loop.  Lisa

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Cole, Rob  
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 12:32 PM
To: Cooper, Monique
Cc: Bolar-Softich, Anthony; White, Bonnie; Vote, Robert; Cole, Rob; Studdert, 
James; Robichaux, Lisa
Subject: Michael Aussem v. Nepco etal
Importance: High

Monique, please recall you previously provided me with a copy of the Nepco 
contract with Morrison Construction for the Lincoln Center Peaker Power Plant 
in Manhattan, Illinois relative to the Gene Rice litigation.  It covered the 
time period of 2/1/00 - 2/1/01.  We know have a new lawsuit with a date of 
loss of 12/21/99.  Can you fax me ASAP a certificate of insurance covering 
that loss date, presumably 2/1/99-2/1/00, assuming Zurich was Morrison's 
carrier for the preceding time period as well.  We would like to sent out the 
attached demand letter ASAP, like we did in the Rice matter, so that 
hopefully Morrison picks up our defense.  Also, does anyone from Nepco have 
any details concerning this incident?  The Plaintiff claims to have slipped 
on muddy trailer steps while exiting one of the job trailers.

Thanks,

Rob Cole, Manager-Claims
ENA - Global Risk Markets
1400 Smith Street, EB 2136F
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-7739 (telephone)
713-646-2341 (facsimile)
 << File: Morrison.doc >> 

 
---------------------- Forwarded by Rob Cole/HOU/ECT on 03/17/2001 12:26 PM 
---------------------------
   
 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> 	Enron North America 
Corp.  From:  Rob Cole                           03/16/2001 08:16 PM
	



To: Bonnie White/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Lisa Robichaux/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert Vote/Enron@EnronXGate, 
Rob.Cole@enron.com, James P Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Eileen 
Kisluk/Enron@EnronXGate 
Subject: Michael Aussem v. Nepco etal

It is suggested that the above lawsuit be assigned to Bob Vote as its 
practically identical to the Gene Rice matter that we are currently handling 
together.  Like we did in that case, this matter should be tendered 
immediately to the plaintiff's employer, Morrison Construction, whose 
carrier, Zurich, assumed our defense and acknowledged us an additional 
insured.

It appears service occurred on 2/20/01, and that an Answer is due within 30 
days or by 3/22/01.  Please advise - thanks-

Rob





