Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
7
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
11 Plaintiff
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
12 v.
1. Breach of Oral Contract;
13 2. Promissory Estoppel;
PAUL ANDERSON, an individual;
JEREMY BOLT, an individual; 3. Intentional Misrepresentation; and
14
TANNHAUSER GATE INC. dba 4. Negligent Misrepresentation
15 IMPACT PICTURES; BOLT PICTURES
INC., a California corporation; and DOES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16
1 through 100,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16639208-3
1 Plaintiff OLIVIA JACKSON brings this action against Defendants PAUL ANDERSON,
2 JEREMY BOLT, TANNHAUSER GATE INC. dba IMPACT PICTURES, BOLT PICTURES
3 INC., and DOES 1 through 100 (collectively and separately, "Defendants") and alleges as follows.
4 INTRODUCTION
5 1. Plaintiff was hired as a stunt double for Milla Jovovich's character, Alice, in the
6 movie, Resident Evil: The Final Chapter ("The Final Chapter"). The Resident Evil franchise is a
7 cash cow for Defendants, who produced and distributed The Final Chapter. That movie alone
8 grossed over $300 million internationally against a production budget of only $40 million. Despite
9 generating handsome profits, Defendants have repeatedly failed to adhere to basic safety practices,
12 byproduct of Defendants' practice of elevating financial considerations over safety. Plaintiff was
13 originally slated to shoot a fight scene that day. However, in a last-minute change, she was asked
15 conditions.The scene involved a vehicle fitted with a mechanical crane attached to a camera
16 driving toward Plaintiff, as she sped on her motorcycle directly at the camera. The camera was
17 supposed to elevate safely above Plaintiff's head before she reached it. But the haphazardly
19 3. The crane operator failed to raise the camera in time, and as a result, the camera
20 smashed into Plaintiff, slicing through the bone of her forearem and tearing the flesh off her cheek,
21 leaving her teeth exposed. The blow was so forceful that it twisted Plaintiff's shoulder blade
22 backward, ripping-out five nerves connected into her spinal column at the root. Among other
23 catastrophic injuries, which are too numerous to even summarize here, Plaintiff's left arm had to
24 be amputated and cerebral spinal fluid seeped from an opening created by the nerves tearing from
25 her spinal column. Plaintiff then had to be placed into a coma while doctors performed life-saving
26 surgery.
27
28
-2-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 4. To induce Plaintiff to perform in The Final Chapter, which comprises serial stunt
2 sequences, Defendants led her to believe that production would secure a prudent level of insurance
3 to cover any injuries she sustained during filming and resulting losses. In fact, the total insurance
4 available to cover Plaintiff's injuries under the no fault personal accident coverage was about
5 $33,000 — an amount barely sufficient to cover a sliver of Plaintiff's enormous medical costs. And
6 for Plaintiff, a former model and and stunt performer who could never again work in her chosen
7 proffession, the coverage limit for her loss of earning claim was a paltry $992. Further, due to an
8 exclusion in the policy for injuries to cast and crew, which Plaintiff only came to learn of much
9 later, there was no employer's liability coverage available to cover her claim.
10 5. Had such facts been known to Plaintiff, she never would have agreed to peform The
11 Final Chapter, or alternatively, would have secured additional insurance on her own. Plaintiff was
12 luke warm on performing in The Final Chapter to begin with. She had already secured the role of
13 stunt double for a leading cast member in Wonder Woman, and didn't need the work. Defendants
14 knew Plaintiff was hesitant to accept the role but had an urgent need for a replacement stunt
15 performer. They concealed from Plaintiff the true nature of the woefully deficient insurance
17 6. Five days after this horrific accident, on September 10, 2015, Defendants and/or
18 their representatives met with Plaintiff's husband. At that time, they only first revealed the meager
19 limits available under the personal accident cover. However, they continued to conceal (1) the
20 absence of employer's liability insurance covering claims from any member of the cast or crew,
21 including stunt performers (like Plaintiff) and (2) that the local production entity with which
22 Plaintiff contracted was a shell company, without assets. During the meeting, Defendants and their
23 representatives promised to provide full financial support for all medical expenses related to
24 Plaintiff's injuries: "we wanted to make sure that the medical is completely covered, so you
27 that promise. They instead sought to cause Plaintiff to refrain from sharing details about the
28
-3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 horrific accident and the lack of insurance with the media, which would cause them professional
2 embarrassment and potential backlash from the stunt performers, film crew, and/or acting
3 community. They also sought to induce Plaintiff to delay taking legal action in reliance on their
6 Defendants shamelessy abandoned Plaintiff and welched on their promise to provide financial
7 support to cover her medical expenses. Plaintiff was left without the financial means to cover the
8 medical care she desperately needed for her grievous injuries, while Defendants, for their part,
10 9. Through this complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) breach oral contract; (2)
11 promissory estoppel; (3) intentional misrepresentation; and (4) and negligent misrepresentation.
13 10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under Article VI, section 10 of the
15 11. Jurisdiction over the Defendants is proper because they are either (1) corporations
16 or associations organized and existing or with their principal or one of their primary places of
17 business located in the State of California and/or have purposely availed themselves of the
19 systematic and continuous business contacts with this state, are licensed to do business in this
20 State, or (2) individuals who are citizens of and/or reside and work within this state.
21 12. Venue is proper in this County because Defendants conduct business in the State of
22 California and in the County of Los Angeles. In addition, a substantial part of the acts and conduct
24 PARTIES
25 13. Plaintiff OLIVIA JACKSON is a South African citizen who resides in England.
26
27
28
-4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 14. At all relevant times, Defendant PAUL ANDERSON was, and remains, an
2 individual who resides in the State of California. On information and belief, ANDERSON works
4 15. At all relevant times, Defendant JEREMY BOLT was, and remains, an individual
5 who resides in the State of California. On information and belief, BOLT works and resides within
7 16. At all relevant times, Defendant TANNHAUSER GATE, INC. was, and remains, a
8 Californian corporation licensed to do business in the State of California, with its principal place
10 17. At all relevant times, Defendant BOLT PICTURES INC. was, and remains, a
11 Californian corporation licensed to do business in the State of California, with its principal place
13 18. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the remaining defendants
14 sued in this action by the fictitious names DOES 1 through 100 and/or is unaware of the
15 responsibility for the claims asserted herein of defendants sued as DOES 1 through 100. Plaintiff
16 will amend her complaint when those names and/or capacities and/or claims become known to
17 Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the fictitiously named defendants is in
18 some manner responsible for the events and allegations set forth in this complaint.
19 19. Defendants, and each of them, including DOES 1-100, were the agents, servants,
21 joint ventures, of the remaining defendants, and each of them, and were at all times material
22 hereto, acting within the authorized course, scope, and purpose of said agency, employment or
23 relationship, and/or that all said acts were subsequently performed with knowledge, acquiescence,
24 ratification and consent of the respective principals, and the benefits thereof accepted by said
25 principals.
26
27
28
-5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 ALTER EGO
2 20. On information and belief, Defendants purportedly operated the production of The
3 Final Chapter through a local South African entity, Davis Films/Impact Pictures (RE6) (PTY)
4 LTD ("the Local Company"). On information and belief, Defendants channelled all contractual
5 agreements with stunt performers and other suppliers and service providers through the Local
6 Company. On information and belief, neither the Local Company nor Defendants have any assets
7 in South Africa.
8 21. The given address for the Local Company on Plaintiff's Stunt Performer
9 Agreement was a mail box owned and operated by PostNet, a South African parcel and business
10 solutions company. No actual corporate operations are conducted from that physical address.
11 22. The transient nature of the Local Company is evidenced by the Local Company's
12 name, which specifically references the film for which it was created. For The Final Chapter, the
13 Local Company used the identifier "(RE6)," representing the sixth film of the Resident Evil
14 franchise. A different company appears to have been created by PAUL ANDERSON and
15 JEREMY BOLT for each film that they have produced. For Resident Evil: Retribution, a film in
16 which 11 actors were injured, they had created the company Davis Films/impact Pictures (RE5),
17 as that was the fifth movie in the lineage of the the Resident Evil franchise.
18 23. On information and belief, the Local Company is owned by PAUL ANDERSON
19 and JEREMY BOLT, directly and/or through TANNHAUSER GATE INC, d/b/a IMPACT
21 24. On information and belief, the Local Company's funds are comingled with its
22 owners, it has no issued stock, had insufficient insurance, has no recorded minutes or corporate
23 records, and failed to maintain an arms' length relationship with PAUL ANDERSON, and/or
24 JEREMY BOLT and/or TANNHAUSER GATE INC d/b/a IMPACT PICTURES and/or BOLT
25 PICTURES and/or other related entities. As shown herein, the Local Company did not carry
27
28
-6-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 25. On information and belief, PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT are the sole
2 officers and directors of the Local Company, TANNHAUSER GATE INC. d/b/a IMPACT
4 26. TANNHAUSER GATE INC. d/b/a IMPACT PICTURES has the same address as
6 27. On information and belief, there is such a unity of interest, ownership, and purpose
7 between Defendants and the Local Company that the individuality, or separateness, of Defendants
8 and the Local Company has ceased, such that an adherence to the fiction of the separate existence
10 28. These and other facts set forth herein justify treating Defendants and Local
12 BOLT as alter egos of the Local Company, such that the Local Company is a mere shell or conduit
14 FACTS
16 29. On or about August 10, 2015, Plaintiff was employed as a stunt double for Milla
18 30. The Final Chapter was written and directed by PAUL ANDERSON and was
19 produced by PAUL ANDERSON, JEREMY BOLT and Screen Gems, Inc. ("Screen Gems")
20 Screen Gems distributed The Final Chapter within the U.S. and through subsidiaries of its parent
22 31. On information and belief, The Final Chapter grossed over $26 million in the U.S.
23 and over $312 million worldwide against a production budget of about $40 million. The Final
24 Chapter is part of the Resident Evil franchise, which has grossed over $1.2 billion against a
26
27
28
-7-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 32. Despite the substantial profit generated by The Final Chapter and the Resident Evil
2 franchise, Defendants have repeatedly failed to comply with best practices to protect the safety
3 and welfare of the cast and crew, repeatedly placing the cast and crew at substantial risk of harm.
4 33. In addition to the accident which forms the underpinnings of this Complaint, other
5 crew injured or killed during the filming of the Resident Evil franchise include Ricardo
6 Cornelius—who was killed when he was crushed against a wall by an improperly secured Humvee
7 that slid off a rotating platform during the production of The Final Chapter and sixteen
8 background actors who were injured (with eleven taken to hospital) when they fell through a gap
9 in a four foot high platform that separated from the set during the production of Resident Evil:
10 Retribution.
11 B. Defendants Knew They Were Placing Stunt Actors at Risk yet Failed to Secure
13 34. Prior to the accident, around May 2015, Plaintiff had been living in England with
14 her husband but was required to briefly return to South Africa while she awaited a new visa that
16 35. While Plaintiff awaited her visa, she spent time practicing motocross at a track in
17 South Africa. While there, she had a chance encounter with Grant Hulley, a South African national
18 who was the stunt coordinator for The Final Chapter. He told Plaintiff that the stunt double of
19 Milla Jovovich had been injured, and they urgently needed a replacement. Mr. Hulley asked if
20 Plaintiff would consider taking the role, for which he believed she would be well-suited given her
21 extensive experience and ability in martial arts and motocross, two critical skills required for that
22 role.
23 36. Plaintiff wasn't convinced that she wanted the job. She did not accept work in
24 South Africa because of the lower hourly pay rates. Also, she had already secured the role of stunt
25 double for a leading cast member in a major movie, Wonder Woman, to be filmed in the United
26 Kingdom and didn't need the work. For these reasons, she told Mr Hulley that she would only take
27 the job if she was paid United Kingdom rates. Mr Hulley advised Plaintiff that he had spoken to
28
-8-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 production and that PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT would agree to hire Plaintiff and to
3 37. Ordinarily, production (which in the present case included PAUL ANDERSON and
4 JEREMY BOLT) is not involved in the appointment of stunt performers and it is arranged through
5 the stunt coordinator (in this case Mr. Hulley). The exception is when the stunt performer is a stunt
6 double of a leading cast member, as they generally want to ensure that the stunt double looks like
8 38. PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT were also more hands-on Plaintiff's
9 hiring because it was expensive for them. As is standard, they wanted to check that Plaintiff
10 looked like Milla Jovovich (the lead actress) for whom Plaintiff was to act as a stunt double. Prior
11 to signing any paperwork, Plaintiff was asked for pictures, videos and measurements. She
12 subsequently received a call instructing her that she was to go to a BMW garage in Cape Town to
13 meet PAUL ANDERSON to inspect the motorbike she would be riding. PAUL ANDERSON met
14 with Plaintiff shortly prior to August 10, 2015. During the meeting, PAUL ANDERSON took a
15 careful look at Plaintiff and took a number of pictures, which Plaintiff understood were provided
16 to Milla Jovovich. She was subsequently asked by production to come in to sign a stunt
17 performer's agreement.
18 39. Plaintiff understood that the company would have comprehensive insurance
19 protection (including employers' liability insurance cover) in the case of an accident. Among
20 other things, maintaining such insurance is required by the Stunt Performer's Agreement
21 ("Agreement"); it is the expected norm in film production; and it is a legal requirement in places
23 40. In the United Kingdom, for example, it is compulsory even for small companies to
24 have in place an employers' liability insurance policy with a minimum £5m ($6.1 million)
25 indemnity per occurance. Companies involved in United Kingdom production of big budget
26 movies would usually take out cover at many multiples of the minimum coverage levels.
27
28
-9-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 41. PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT—both of whom are British—were the
2 sole directors of a film production company in the United Kingdom, Impact Pictures Limited,
3 between December 6, 2000 and July 8, 2014, and thus, were undoubtedly aware of these legal
5 42. Plaintiff was not told by PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT (either at the
6 meeting with PAUL ANDERSON or later) that while higher rates would be paid for her hourly
7 rate, she would not be afforded the reasonable and prudent level of insurance protection that she
8 expected.
9 43. Plaintiff was invited to attend the film set on August 10, 2015, where she was
10 handed the Stunt Performer's Agreement and told to sign it. Plaintiff was not given the Stunt
11 Performers Agreement prior to the meeting. The parties to the Stunt Performers Agreement were
12 Plaintiff and a local South African company, Davis Films/Impact Pictures (RE6) (PTY) LTD ("the
13 Local Company"), controlled by PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT. Plaintiff was unaware
14 at the time that she was contracting with a South African shell company, which had no assets.
15 Plaintiff was told to sit alone in an office to sign the Stunt Performers Agreement. There was
16 nobody present to discuss or explain any provision of the contract, which was presented to
17 Plaintiff on a take it or leave it basis. And, on information and belief, the Agreement was not
19 44. The Agreement included certain key requirements and promises relating to the
21
Provision 13.1: the Company shall, as soon as it is reasonably possible after
22 the commencement date, take out public liability and personal accident
cover to cover the Artist while he/she is rendering the Services to the limits
23 determined by the Company as well as any such additional insurance as
may be prudent;
24
25
Provision 5.4: The Artist warrants that he or she is in good health and has
26 no condition which would prevent the Company from obtaining life,
health, accident, cast or other insurance covering him or her at premium
27 rates normal to the Artist's age and gender, without any unusual exclusion
or limitation of liability on the part of the insurer
28
- 10 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1
Provision 7.10.3: The Artist agrees that should a performance be
2 required that contains inherently dangerous activities and the Artist of
his or her own free will agrees on carrying out such performance and
3 expresses this Agreement in full in SPECIAL CONDITIONS of the
Schedule then the performance shall be executed at the Artist's own risk and
4 the Artist absolves the Company, its agents and its representatives as
well as any independent contractor instructed by the Company for the
5 purpose of assisting with or arranging the performance, and indemnifies
the Company and agrees to hold it harmless, from and against any and
6 all demands and claims of every nature and kind (including damage to
the property of the Artist) arising from or caused by or attributable to the
7 execution of the performance by the Artist where such execution of the
performance by the Artist is not covered by the Company's insurance
8 policies, or create an excess of any amounts paid to the Company in respect
of any, insurance policies, provided that such demands and claims result
9 from negligence on the part of the Artist and not negligence on the part
of the Company.
10
11
Provision 7.10.4: Any and all demands and claims of every nature and kind
12 by the Artist resulting from negligence on the part of the Company shall be
subject to the provisions of Clause 10.
13
14
Provision 13.5: The Artist shall be responsible for medical, excess personal
15 accident and unemployment insurance
16
(Emphasis Added.)
17
45. Under thes provisions, PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT, through their
18
Local Company, were under an obligation to obtain not only public liability and personal accident
19
cover to cover the Artist but also any such additional insurance as may be prudent.
20
46. Section 5.4 of the Stunt Performers Agreement confirms that Defendants were
21
required take out a variety of coverages to protect the performer in the event of an accident during
22
filming.
23
47. Personal accident cover provides coverage for all reasonably foreseaable
24
consequences of an on-set injury. Personal accident cover is similar to workers compensation in
25
that it provides no fault payouts for injuries on a weighted basis depending on the severity of the
26
injury, plus indemnity for medical expenses to certain caps. Plaintiff was not told that only the
27
bare minimum coverage limits were secured.
28
- 11 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 48. Outside of the above-quoted provisions, the term personal accident cover is not
2 included elsewhere in the Stunt Performers Agreement, save where reference is given to the
3 Artist's responsibility for medical, excess personal accident and unemployment insurance.
4 Plaintiff was led to believe, however, that reasonable and prudent levels of insurance were
5 purchased, and she had no reason to believe that she would need to secure her own coverage.
6 49. Employers' liability insurance provides coverage for injuries to performers during
7 filming, including those caused by the negligence of the production company. Such insurance
8 would unquestionably be prudent. This is particularly true since Plaintiff would not be entitled to
9 make a workers compensation claim in South Africa as she (like all stunt performers) was hired as
10 an independent contractor.
11 50. Plaintiff had no access to the insurance arrangements made by PAUL ANDERSON
12 and JEREMY BOLT, through their Local Company. She reasonably believed that PAUL
13 ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT, through their Local Company, had obtained reasonable and
14 prudent insurance coverages to protect the international cast and crew, including but not limited to
15 employers' liability insurance and personal accident cover at an appropriate level. This is
16 particularly true given their obligation and promise to do so and standard practice in the film
17 industry.
18 51. In fact, PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT did take out a policy entitled
19 Event Liability Protection with Hollard Insurance (the "Event Policy"), on July 24, 2015, before
20 the Stunt Performers Agreement was executed. The Event Policy included public liability
21 insurance for third party claims with an indemnity limit of ZAR 50,000,000 ($3.38m) and
22 employers' liability insurance with the same limit. However, the Event Policy included the
23 following specific risk exception, which completely excluded employers' liability insurance
24 coverage for stunt performers (like Plaintiff) and other cast and crew:
25
It is hereby declared and agreed that the following amendments are made to
26 the Policy
27 Notwithstanding anything else contained in the Policy to the contrary the
Company shall not indemnify the Insured arising directly or indirectly from
28
- 12 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
any actual or alleged liability whatsoever for any claim, event or loss or
1 losses caused by, arising out of, resulting from, in consequence of, any way
involving:
2
Injury to the cast and key crew....
3
(Emphasis added.)
4
52. As a consequence of this exception, there was effectively no employers' liability
5
insurance coverage for any of the cast and key crew, including Plaintiff.
6
53. On information and belief, PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT did or should
7
have reasonably known that the Event Policy did not include any employers' liability insurance
8
that would provide protection to Plaintiff (and other cast and key crew) because the premium for
9
the Event Policy was only ZAR 38,500 ($2,600).
10
54. On information and belief, despite promising to do so, these defendants never had
11
any intention of purchasing proper levels of insurance sufficient to cover Plaintiff— instead,
12
seeking protection through the combination of cheap, but virtually worthless, insuance in the name
13
of what was, in essence, a shell corporation.
14
55. PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT, through their representatives, promised
15
to obtain prudent and reasonable insurance and coverage, which would include employers'
16
liability insurance. They did not obtain such insurance, and on information and belief, did not
17
intend to obtain such insurance at the time the promise was made.
18
56. If PAUL ANDERSON, JEREMY BOLT, or their representatives had informed
19
Plaintiff that they had no employers' liability insurance, she would not have entered the contract
20
and would not have been involved in The Final Chapter. That information would have been
21
material to Plaintiff, or any other reasonable stunt performer in her position.
22
57. On information and belief, PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT and their
23
representatives also intentionally or negligently failed to disclose and/or concealed that they did
24
not have sufficient personal accident cover in place and did not intend to secure such insurance.
25
They further intentionally concealed from Plaintiff that they had taken out wholly inadequate
26
insurance that was incapable of covering medical costs for any severe injury.
27
28
- 13 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 58. Plaintiff was misled to believe that the insurance secured for any injuries and
2 resulting losses she sustained during the production of The Final Chapter would have adequate
3 coverage limits, and the true information that no such adequate insurance was in place was
4 concealed from Plaintiff. Prior to the accident, Plaintiff's sister, Victoria Jackson, even asked
5 Plaintiff if she needed additional insurance in connection with her participation in The Final
6 Chapter. Plaintiff declined to purchase additional insurance, as she was under the misconception
9 Plaintiff of the woefully deficient coverage limits and that they did not intend to procure
10 reasonable insurance to cover Plaintiff in the event of an on-set accident, she would not have been
11 involved in the Subject Film, or in the alternative and at a minimum, Plaintiff would have obtained
13 60. On information and belief, PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT and their
14 representatives intentionally or negligently failed to disclose and/or concealed that they did not
15 have any employers' liability insurance in place; that they had insufficient coverage limits; that
16 they did not intend to procure such insurance; and that the Local Company with whom Plaintiff
17 was contracting was merely a shell company without any actual assets.
18 C. Paul Anderson and Jeremy Bolt Demanded Dangerous and Reckless Action
19 Sequences in the Production of The Final Chapter, Despite Having Failed to Secure
21 61. On September 5, 2015, Plaintiff was due to perform in a fight scene. However,the
22 planned fight scene had to be abandoned due to rain. Nobody had planned an indoor weather
23 option. An impromptu decision was made by PAUL ANDERSON that Plaintiff should perform a
26 a. Plaintiff was to ride in a straight line along the track chosen by the PAUL
27 ANDERSON;
28
- 14 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 b. the track consisted of an abandoned highway between two bridges, one on the
4 d. at the same time as Plaintiff was to commence her ride, a vehicle fitted with a
6 driving towards Plaintiff, and while so approaching, Plaintiff would be filmed from
7 the front;
8 e. the sequence was planned so that the camera would start filming from a position
9 close to the road surface and then would be lifted up through manipulating the
11 f. Plaintiff was to travel in a straight line at 43 mph (70 km/h) and the vehicle with
12 the freedom arm was to travel at 28 mph (45 km/h). This meant that there was a
14 g. Plaintiff was to travel in a straight line only and there would be no left or right
16 63. However, there was insufficient time to adequately plan the scene. And critically,
17 the scene was intrinsically dangerous for at least the following reasons:
18 a. The manipulation and lifting of the Freedom Arm was by hand without any form of
19 automation or feedback. The intention was that the Freedom Arm would pass
20 "close" to Plaintiff's head to gather the best shot. However, the decision on when
21 the Freedom Arm should be lifted was a matter of subjective human judgment in a
22 stunt where the two vehicles were travelling at a relative approach speed of 71
23 mph. To put that decision in context, a delay of one second constituted a closing
25 b. There were no markings on the ground to mitigate this risk of subjective human
26 judgment.
27
28
- 15 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 c. There were no earpieces given to the crew taking part in the scene despite
2 Plaintiff's request.
3 64. Plaintiff was told by PAUL ANDERSON that she would have to take part in this
4 scene, despite there being insufficient time for planning. Plaintiff was excluded from risk
6 65. Three separate runs occurred on the day of the accident. The first run was a
7 rehearsal run, which did not involve the Freedom Arm being extended. The second run was
8 performed with the Freedom Arm extended. It passed close to Plaintiff's head. Plaintiff recalls
9 feeling that the Freedom Arm had narrowly missed her, but was reassured from her training that if
10 all variables remained the same, then there would be no accident — this is a key tenet of the stunt
12 66. The inherent risks were compounded by the decision of PAUL ANDERSON and
13 others to change variables between the second and third runs, and their failure to communicate
14 those changes. This caused cast and crew involved in the scene to not know what one another were
15 doing.
16 67. There were two critical changes made for the final run:
17 a. A decision was made to change the starting position of the vehicle housing the
18 Freedom Arm. The effect of that decision is that any road side objects that the
19 individuals operating the Freedom Arm could have used as a guide for timing of
20 when to raise the Freedom Arm were no longer relevant. It was effectively starting
21 anew.
22 b. A decision was made to change the camera lens (adding a longer camera lens) and
23 lift the Freedom Arm "one beat later". As set out above, one beat (or one second)
24 constituted over 100 ft. Plaintiff, if asked, could have advised that they did not have
25 one second.
26 68. The planning and conduct of the scene was the responsibility of PAUL
27 ANDERSON.
28
- 16 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 69. As a consequence of the above, on the final run the Freedom was lifted too late.
2 Plaintiff lifted her forearm to protect her face. The force of the blow was so severe that it sliced
3 through her forearm, obliterating the bone in the process (the bone was never recovered), before
4 tearing into her cheek pulling the flesh back and leaving her teeth exposed.
5 70. The impact twisted Plaintiff's shoulder blade backwards, ripping five nerves
6 connected into her spinal column out at the root. She suffered multiple fractures to her spine, her
7 eye socket, her ribs, her shoulder scapula and clavicle, her humerus and her forearm (in addition to
8 the obliterated bone), her thumb was torn off, her arm became paralyzed, her brain bled and
9 swelled, an artery was severed in her forearm, and multiple arteries ruptured in her neck.
10 71. Plaintiff's left arm could not be saved and had to be amputated above the elbow.
11 Cerebral spinal fluid sapped out of the hole created by the nerves tearing out of her spinal column,
12 leaving Plaintiff screaming in agony. The neuropathic pain that riddled her body felt like "termites
13 eating flesh"; a pain that she had to fight while battling hallucinations and sleepless nights caused
14 by post-traumatic stress and injuries to her brain. With the loss of her arm, paralysis of the left side
15 of her neck, and imbalance of muscles, her spine twisted and deformed, causing one leg to be
17 D. After the Accident, Paul Anderson, Jeremy Bolt and Sony Screen Gems Promised to
18 Support Plaintiff Financially, Only to Break Their Promises and Abandon Her
19 72. Following the accident, Plaintiff was placed in an induced coma while doctors
21 73. Plaintiff's husband, Dave Grant, had travelled from England to South Africa. He
22 attended a meeting in South Africa with Plaintiff's sister, Victoria Jackson, and various persons
23 involved in The Final Chapter. The meeting took place on September 10, 2015, just five days after
24 the accident. He was met by JEREMY BOLT and Genevieve Hofmyer, who purportedly attended
27
28
- 17 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 74. The meeting was recorded (lawfully under South African law) by Mr. Grant
2 ("Recording"). During the meeting, JEREMY BOLT promised on behalf of himself, PAUL
3 ANDERSON and others to provide financial support to Plaintiff to ensure that she would have the
4 best care to rehabilitate her back to health and would pay for any related expenses.
5 75. The following excerpts are from the transcript of the Recording:
6 Dave Grant: [I]t's solely knowing that cover is there and that she is
going to be looked after from start to finish.
7
Genevieve Yes that's what we wanted to talk to you about.
8 Hofmyer:
9 Jeremy Bolt: Yes that's what we are here to reassure you of.
10 Victoria [A]nd when she is mobile, they are based in the UK. And
Jackson: we need to look at that as well obviously ...
11
Jeremy Bolt: Yes as soon as you are able you want to...
12
Victoria [B]ecause If that's in a year's time, but eventually they
13 Jackson have to look at that as well.
14 Genevieve Yes, that's why we wanted to meet. To put your mind at
Hofmyer: rest that even though, we'll give you all the details of
15 about what our insurance cover is, it's limited, it's limited,
but in terms of the companies, despite that, we wanted
16 to make sure that the medical is completely covered, so
you should not be worrying about that.
17
Dave Grant: All the way through?
18
Genevieve All the way through.
19 Hofmyer:
20 Dave Grant: Ok. Because it's a massive stress off our minds
21 Jeremy Bolt: We're here to say just being human beings, we
absolutely will do that. We'll honour that regardless of
22 the insurance.
23 Genevieve Yes, because honestly the insurance is very limited.
Hofmyer:
24
Jeremy Bolt: So, you don't... we don't want you to worry about that.
25
Genevieve We want her to get the best medical attention and for you
26 Hofmyer: to be able to follow all the procedures that are going to
bring her back to health.
27
28
- 18 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
Dave Grant: And it's all the aftercare. It's all the specialists to see
1 afterwards. It's all the trauma... It's everything
2 Genevieve It's a very long road
Hofmyer:
3
Jeremy Bolt: We know it's going to be a very long road. We just want
4 to make sure she is on the path.
5 Genevieve Everything at the moment, medically is coming to us, the
Hofmyer: company. We will also honor her contract through to the
6 end of the work she is going to do with us.
7 Jeremy Bolt: Your accommodation here. Whatever you need, we will
cover. We are here to reassure you that we will cover her
8 back to health.
9 Dave Grant: Honestly we can't thank you enough. Because it means
the world
10
Jeremy Bolt: I understand... you don't want to be worrying about that.
11
Genevieve ...Don't worry about that. Just make sure that as a family
12 Hofmyer: you are satisfied with what you are getting medically from
here and let us know if there is anything more that needs
13 to be done and let us know if we can engage with that as
we want her to have the best care.
14
Dave Grant: Thank you. I can't stress how much that means. It's the
15 most important thing more than anything. Just to know
that there is not suddenly going to be a problem and the
16 insurance has run out and you're on your own.
17 Jeremy Bolt: It's not going to happen.
18 76. During the meeting, JEREMY BOLT explicitly stated that he was making the
26 the following:
27 Jeremy Bolt:
28
- 19 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
What I'll do is...erm... I'm talking to Sony [Screen
1 Gems], now the press know I'll get a statement which I'll
share with you.
2
Dave Grant: Thanks for being very honourable and very...
3
Genevieve [I] think it's very important to Paul, and to the team and to
4 Hofmyer: Sony.
5 Jeremy Bolt: [Y]eah, Sony sends all of their support. The head of their
studio we are making the film for is emailing me twice a
6 day...
7 Genevieve [Y]eah, they are very...
Hofmyer:
8
Jeremy Bolt: [I]t's a fact as you say, you're in the business you know
9 what it's like.
10
78. During the conversation, Genevieve Hofmyer explained the meager personal
11
accident coverage would not affect Defendants' commitment to provide financial support over and
12
above the coverage limits:
13
Genevieve [When queried about insurance cover:] It's customary
14 Hofmyer: here. We have... I'll put it down in writing for you what
our insurance is, it's 500,000 RAND of medical, 500,000
15 RAND of permanent disability, 500,000 death and then a
payout of 15,000 RAND for...err... 6 months as a loss of
16 earning compensation. But as I said, we would augment
that with her complete contract. I will send you... but on
17 top of that what we are saying is that we going to cover
the medical expenses.
18
Jeremy Bolt: We want to do the right thing...
19
79. To put this cover in context, 500,000 RAND is $33,000, which is insufficient for
20
even one of Plaintiff's many critical surgeries. The insurance obtained to cover her payout for loss
21
of earnings represents $992. Plaintiff can never work again in her chosen profession.
22
80. Neither JEREMY BOLT nor anyone else at the meeting stated that they had no
23
employers' liability insurance or that the Local Company had no assets. This information was
24
critical and was purposefully withheld and concealed from Plaintiff and her husband.
25
81. Mr. Grant and Plaintiff (when she was out of her coma and had listened to the
26
recording) reasonably understood that Defendants would ensure that Plaintiff received full
27
coverage or payment for her medical expenses.
28
- 20 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 82. Defendants made the foregoing promises, with the intention of inducing Plaintiff to
2 (1) not publicize the details of her accident or the lack of insurance, and (2) to forego pursuing
4 83. Mr. Grant and Plaintiff were given the impression, based on the aforementioned
7 arrangements and were concerned with the possibility of a backlash by the stunt performer
9 84. Plaintiff was relying on the financial support offered by Defendants, as she did
10 have sufficient assets or insurance to pay for the necessary surgeries. Plaintiff did not speak to the
11 press and did not explore litigation against Defendants because of their offer to pay for her much
13 85. A mere 12 weeks after the meeting, in early December 2015, just before she
14 underwent major spinal surgery, individuals representing Defendants tried to pressure Plaintiff
15 into agreeing to limit her claims and to sign a waiver, confidentiality, and indemnity agreement
16 ("Confidentiality Agreement").
17 86. The parties to that proposed agreement included the Local Company. The address
18 given for the Local Company was now the same address as a separate, local South African
21 initially refused to pay for the surgery, which they ultimately paid for. Following Plaintiff's back
22 surgery in December 2015, they continued to correspond with Plaintiff and Plaintiff's husband,
23 expressing their intention for Plaintiff to get the best care, but at every turn, requesting that
25 88. Plaintiff continued to act in the manner she had understood was to be expected of
26 her. On November 18, 2018, Plaintiff wrote the following to individuals involved in The Final
27
28
- 21 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 Chapter, including PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT, requesting that they honor the
2 promise:
3 While I was in a coma my distraught husband was told by Jeremy Bolt and
Genevieve that he was not to worry, regardless of insurance they would take
4 care of me and pay for medical bills for what ever I needed to get me back
to health. This of course wasn't true because around 12 weeks later, just
5 before a major spinal surgery that I desperately needed, the hospital called
to say that I couldn't have the surgery as the production declined to pay for
6 the bills. After Dave called profusely - a contract came, offering me some
money for future medical treatment (that would have to be paid back to
7 production at a later stage) but in exchange for this money both myself and
my husband would have to be silent, not sue anyone involved with or
8 associated with the production and I would also have to instead sue the
South African government fund, the Road Accident Fund, which in turn
9 indemnifies everyone involved. So that would mean that no one is held
accountable for what happened to me. . . .
10
To me this felt like bribery - at an obviously vulnerable & desperate time in
11 my life, knowing that my medical bills would be so extortionately high
because I needed so much medical care and ongoing treatment.
12
I am extremely grateful for the couple of months of medical bills that were
13 paid for by the production. Although it seems less like kindness when I
know that it is expected for all those costs to be paid back. I am also
14 reminded of the fact that the medical cover taken out by production just
simply wasn't good enough.
15
All parties involved - Production, Action vehicles & Stunts - have pushed
16 for this legal case to be a Road Accident Fund case. The RAF is capped and
therefore I wouldn't get anywhere near enough compensation to be able to
17 take care of myself & get the treatment that I need. I also feel that its unfair
that everyone involved, and the parts they had to play in the accident, get to
18 totally walk away from the situation and carry on with their lives like
nothing ever happened while I keep suffering every moment, every day.
19
20 89. Given Defendants' failure to fully comply with the terms of their promise, Plaintiff
21 was forced to investigate what action could be taken in South Africa. Plaintiff continued to believe
22 that while the personal accident cover limits were very low, that the Local Company did have
24 90. On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff commenced a proceeding in South Africa against the
25 Local Company for negligence. On September 11, 2017, two years and six days after the accident,
26 following service of the claim on the Local Company, Plaintiff's South African attorney, Stephen
27 Flowers, received a call from Roy Barendse, the South African attorney for the Local Company.
28
- 22 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 Mr. Barendse advised Mr. Flowers during the call that there was no employers' liability insurance
2 in place to cover the Local Company's liability. This was the first time that this had been made
3 known to Plaintiff. Mr Flowers phoned Plaintiff on the same date to advise her of the lack of
5 91. In December 2018, Plaintiff re-engaged with persons involved in The Final
Chapter and requested that they compensate her for her extensive injuries and loss of earnings.
8 92. PAUL ANDERSON, JEREMY BOLT and others involved in The Final Chapter
9 offered a meager sum, slightly higher than before. They again asked Plaintiff to sign the
11 93. As part of the proposed Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiff would have been
12 required to commence a claim against the Road Accident Fund. The Road Accident Fund is a state
13 insurer established by statute, which provides insurance cover in circumstances where an accident
14 occurs on a road in South Africa. However, it has strict limitations on any compensation in
15 relation to medical expenses and particularly loss of earnings (the limit of compensation for loss of
17 94. Meanwhile, in the then-pending litigation in South Africa, the Road Accident Fund
18 contested that Plaintiff's claim should be a claim covered by the Road Accident Fund, while the
19 Local Company (and other named defendants) argued that the claim should be covered by the
20 Road Accident Fund. A hearing was held in South Africa on March 5, 2019, to determine whether
21 the claim should proceed as a claim against the Road Accident Fund or the Local Company (and
22 others). During the course of the hearing it was revealed to the Court and the attorney for the Road
23 Accident Fund that PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT (and other named South African
24 defendants) all lacked any employers' liability insurance and the Local Company would be unable
25 to pay any claims brought by Plaintiff. After that disclosure, the attorney representing the Road
27
28
- 23 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 95. Following the decision of the court that the Road Accident Fund would defend the
2 claim and provide an indemnity to the Local Company, the Local Company was dismissed leaving
4 96. On information and belief, the dismissal of the South African claim caused PAUL
5 ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT to believe they were free from legal recourse from Plaintiff.
6 Consequently they withdrew any promise to cover Plaintiffs medical expenses or otherwise
7 compensate her (except for PAUL ANDERSON, who has left open a very modest offer of
8 support).
9 97. As a consequence of the withdrawal of the support, Plaintiff has been unable to
10 have surgeries that she would otherwise have undertaken, which has caused a worsening of her
12 98. PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT continue to work together, most recently
13 in the development of a new film Monster Hunter due for release in September 2020.
14 TOLLING
15 99. Any applicable statutes of limitation have been tolled by Defendants' affirmative
16 acts of fraud, fraudulent concealment, suppression and denial of the true facts regarding the
18 medical costs arising from the incident, and false promises to pay for Plaintiffs medical costs,
19 despite not having any intention to do so. On information and belief, at all times relevant,
20 Defendants have had exclusive knowledge of such facts and continued to conceal these facts from
22 100. Defendants are estopped, or otherwise barred, from relying on any statutes of
23 limitation because of their fraudulent concealment and misrepresentations of the true facts from
24 Plaintiff and their false promise to pay for Plaintiffs medical costs, notwithstanding their failure
25 to procure adequate insurance and their apparent unwillingness to comply with their promise.
26
27
28
- 24 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3 (All Defendants)
4 101. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all prior paragraphs
6 102. An oral agreement was entered between Plaintiffs' representatives and Defendants
8 103. As set forth herein, under the terms of the oral agreement, Defendants agreed to pay
9 all of Plaintiff's medical expenses, including for rehabilitation, arising from the incident. In
10 exchange, Plaintiff (1) delayed taking legal action against Defendants; and (2) refrained from
11 discussing the details of the incident and deficient insurance with the media.
12 104. On or about March 31, 2019, Defendants breached the oral contract, when they
13 advised Plaintiff that they would not comply, in any respect, with their obligation to pay for all of
14 Plaintiff's medical expenses, including for rehabilitation, arising from the incident. Only PAUL
15 ANDERSON continued to offer a small amount of support, which did not satisfy his obligations
18 established at trial.
20 Promissory Estoppel
21 (All Defendants)
22 106. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
24 107. On September 10, 2015, Defendants made a clear and unambiguous promise to pay
25 for Plaintiff's medical expenses, including for rehabilitation, arising from the incident.
26 108. The foregoing statement of promise was made to Plaintiff's husband and sister,
28
- 25 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 109. Plaintiff relied on that promise by delaying bringing a lawsuit against Defendants
2 and refraining from speaking to the media about the details of the incident, in which she was
4 110. On or about March 31, 2019, Defendants breached the oral contract, when they
5 advised Plaintiff that they would not comply, in any respect, with their obligation to pay for all of
6 Plaintiffs medical expenses, including for rehabilitation, arising from the incident. Only PAUL
7 ANDERSON continued to offer a small amount of support, which did not satisfy his obligations
10 112. As a result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to
11 damages in an amount to be established at trial including but not limited to restitution, or specific
15 (All Defendants)
16 113. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
18 114. Defendants deliberately made the false and misleading representation and/or
19 promise that they had procured sufficient insurance to cover Plaintiff's damages and lost income
20 as a result of any injury she suffered during the filming of The Final Chapter.
21 115. Defendants knew that this representation and promise was false when made, and/or
22 they made their representation recklessly and without regard for its truth.
23 116. Further, although Defendants purchased the Event Policy on July 24, 2015, and
24 knew that it contained woefully deficient insurance coverages and limits, they concealed such
25 material information from Plaintiff to induce her to perform in The Final Chapter.
26
27
28
- 26 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 117. The insurance was deficient, and not reasonably prudent, in the respect that it had
2 minimal coverage limits and an exclusion for employer's liability coverage that applied to cast
4 118. On information and belief, Defendants purchased the Event Policy with
5 unreasonably low limits and insufficient coverages to save money on the insurance premium.
6 119. Defendants, who had exclusive knowledge of such facts, actively concealed that
7 they did not secure proper insurance, and that the Local Company with which Plaintiff contracted
9 120. On September 10, 2015, five-days after Plaintiff's on-set accident, Defendants
10 and/or their representatives met with Plaintiff's husband and sister. At that time, they revealed the
11 meager limits available under the personal accident cover. However, they continued to conceal (1)
12 the absence of employer's liability insurance and (2) that the local production entity with which
14 121. During the September 10, 2015 meeting, Defendants promised to provide full
16 122. On information and belief, Defendants never had any intention of performing on
17 that promise. They instead sought to prevent Plaintiff from sharing details about the incident and
18 lack of insurance with the media, which would cause them professional embarrassment and
19 potential backlash from the stunt performer and/or acting community. They also sought to induce
20 Plaintiff to delay taking legal action against them in reliance on their promise of financial support.
22 ANDERSON continued to offer a small amount of support, which did not satisfy the promise.
24 false promises, and concealment of material facts (collectively and separately, "Deceit").
25 125. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants' Deceit by, among other things: (1)
26 performing in The Final Chapter and/or not procuring insurance on her own; (2) delying taking
27
28
- 27 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
legal action against Defendants; and (3) refraining from discussing the details of the incident and
3 126. Plaintiff was harmed as a result of Defendants' Deceit. Among other things,
4 Plaintiff was induced to perform in the Final Chapter and suffered catastrophic injuries; she did
5 not purchase adequate insurance on her own; she did not receive the benefit of Defendants' false
6 promise to pay for all her medical care; and she delayed filing a lawsuit.
7 127. Plaintiff's reliance on Defendants' Deceit was a substantial factor in causing her
8 harm.
9 128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' Deceit, Plaintiff has suffered injury
10 and substantial damage in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to, economic
12 129. Defendants' fraudulent conduct was undertaken with a conscious disregard of the
13 rights and interests of Plaintiff, and for the purpose of enriching themselves and jeopardizing
15 fact and in undertaking the foregoing wrongful acts, Defendants acted maliciously, oppressively
16 and with the intent to defraud Plaintiff. Plaintiff is, by reason thereof, entitled to recover punitive
17 and exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish and to make an example of Defendants.
19 Negligent Misrepresentation
20 (All Defendants)
21 130. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 100 of the
22 Complaint, except that, for the purposes of this claim, Plaintiff does not intend to incorporate
23 allegations of intentional fraud and deceit, as this cause of action is being pled in the alternative to
25 131. Defendants represented and/or promised that they had procured insurance sufficient
26 to cover Plaintiffs damages and lost income as a result of any injury she suffered during the
28
- 28 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 132. Defendants had no reasonable basis to believe this representation and promise was
2 true when made, and/or they made their representation recklessly and without regard for its truth.
3 133. Further, although Defendants purchased the Event Policy on July 24, 2015, and
4 knew that it contained woefully deficient insurance coverages and limits, they failed to disclose
5 such material information to Plaintiff to induce her to perform in The Final Chapter.
6 134. The insurance was deficient, and not reasonably prudent, in the respect that it had
7 minimal coverage limits and an exclusion for employer's liability coverage that applied to cast
9 135. On information and belief, Defendants purchased the Event Policy with
10 unreasonably low limits and insufficient coverages to save money on the insurance premium.
11 136. Defendants, who had exclusive knowledge of such facts, failed to disclose that they
12 did not secure proper insurance, and that the Local Company with which Plaintiff contracted was a
14 137. On September 10, 2015, five-days after Plaintiffs on-set accident, Defendants
15 and/or their representatives met with Plaintiffs husband and sister. At that time, they revealed the
16 meager limits available under the personal accident cover. However, they continued to fail to
17 disclose (1) the absence of employer's liability insurance and (2) that the local production entity
19 138. During the September 10, 2015 meeting, Defendants promised to provide full
21 139. On information and belief, Defendants had no reasonable basis to believe that
22 promise to be true. They sought to prevent Plaintiff from sharing details about the incident and
23 lack of insurance with the media, which would cause them professional embarrassment and
24 potential backlash from the stunt performer, film crew and/or acting community. They also sought
25 to induce Plaintiff to delay taking legal action against them in reliance on their promise of
26 financial support.
27
28
- 29 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
1 1. Ultimately, Defendants renounced their promise entirely. Only PAUL
2 ANDERSON continued to offer a small amount of support, which did not even satisfy his
6 Mistrepresentations").
8 among other things: (1) performing in The Final Chapter and/or not procuring insurance on her
9 own; (2) delaying taking legal action against Defendants; and (3) refraining from discussing the
12 Among other things, Plaintiff was induced to perform in the Final Chapter and suffered
13 catastrophic injuries; she did not purchase adequate insurance on her own; she did not receive the
14 benefit of Defendants' promise to pay for all her medical care; and she delayed filing a lawsuit.
18 Plaintiff has suffered injury and substantial damage in an amount to be proven at trial, including
19 but not limited to, economic losses and noneconomic losses, which include mental distress.
21 Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and
25 agreement;
28
- 30 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3
e. Awarding Plaintiff fees and costs allowable by law;
g. Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
By: A-444W/
Stuart R. Fraenkel
Gabriel S. Barenfeld
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JURY DEMAND
- 31 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16639208-3