Message-ID: <13683010.1075858693511.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 05:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: b..sanders@enron.com
To: bonnie.white@enron.com
Subject: FW: Casey, John A. v. Nepco
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Sanders, Richard B. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=RSANDER>
X-To: White, Bonnie </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Bwhite2>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sanders, Richard B (Non-Privileged)\Sanders, Richard B.\Sent Items
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: Sanders, Richard B (Non-Privileged).pst

If you have not already done so,can you get back to Jim. Thanks

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Derrick Jr., James =20
Sent:=09Monday, August 20, 2001 4:44 PM
To:=09Sanders, Richard B.; White, Bonnie
Subject:=09FW: Casey, John A. v. Nepco

Please let me have your recommendation re the possible extention of coverag=
e.  Thank you. Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Cole, Rob =20
Sent:=09Monday, August 20, 2001 8:44 AM
To:=09Derrick Jr., James
Cc:=09Bouillion, James L.; Cole, Rob; Mathis, Ken; Studdert, James P.; Kend=
all, Earline
Subject:=09Casey, John A. v. Nepco

Mr. Derrick, I am directing this email to your attention at the request of =
Mr. Jim Bouillion for consideration of extending coverage to Nepco, pursuan=
t to the EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT on our Directors & Offi=
cers policy.

We have reviewed the Petition wherein a former iron worker of Nepco alleges=
 damages as a result of being terminated, in violation of Title 85 O.S. d 5=
.  The Plaintiff sustained an on the job injury on April 6, 2001, when he w=
as struck by a crane.  He received workers compensation benefits.  He alleg=
edly re-injured his back on June 15, 2001.  The Plaintiff alleges that "sev=
eral hours after notifying his employer of re-injuring his back, Plaintiff =
was summarily terminated by Defendant."  The "Plaintiff alleges that a sign=
ificant part of Defendant's decision to terminate him was because of his in=
jury and because he exercised his rights under the Workers Compensation Act=
."  The Petition goes on to state that the Defendant's actions "were done i=
n reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff and/or were wanton and=
 motivated by oppression, fraud and/or malice" and thus includes a count fo=
r punitive damages.  Suit is filed in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, with=
 an Answer date of before September 4, 2001.

Our preliminary review of the Petition, absent any independent investigatio=
n or knowledge with respect to the allegations and the value placed on same=
, suggests there might be coverage for this loss under the Directors & Offi=
cers policy.  The definition of "WRONGFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE" includes "th=
e actual or constructive termination of a career opportunity, or employment=
 discipline or evaluation in a manner which violates any local, state, or f=
ederal law, whether existing by statute or common law, or which breaches an=
y implied contract to continue employment"...It is doubtful this matter wou=
ld exceed the $1M policy deductible.

Please advise if you would like for us to extent coverage to Nepco.  Accord=
ing to the information provided, the matter has been assigned to Bonnie Whi=
te of the Litigation Unit and is being overseen by Richard Sanders of ENA.

Thanks,

Rob Cole, Manager-Claims
ENA - Global Risk Markets
P.O. Box 1188 (77251-1188)
1400 Smith Street, EB2136F
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-7739 (telephone)
713-646-2341 (facsimile)
Rob.Cole@Enron.com (email)