You are on page 1of 31

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/10/2019 08:48 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Clifton,Deputy Clerk


19STCV32218
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Yolanda Orozco

Stuart R. Fraenkel (State Bar No. 173991)


1
stuart@nflawfirm.com
2 Gabriel S. Barenfeld (State Bar No. 224146)
gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com
3 NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
601 So. Figueroa Street, Suite 2050
4 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-622-6469
5
Telecopier: 213-622-6019
6

7
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9

10 OLIVIA JACKSON, CASE NO.

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

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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,

10 imperilling the lives of the cast and crew.

11 2. On September 5, 2015, Plaintiff suffered a horrific on-set injury, which was a

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

14 to perform a dangerous and technically complex motorcycle scene in adverse weather

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

18 planned stunt went terribly wrong.

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

16 coverage, which they knew would be a deal-breaker for her.

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

25 should not be worrying about that..."

26 7. On information and belief, Defendants never had any intention of performing on

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

4 promise of financial support.

5 8. After skimping on insurance and causing Plaintiff's nightmarish injuries,

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,

9 continue to enjoy the abundant profits generated by The Final Chapter.

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.

12 VENUE AND JURISDICTION

13 10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under Article VI, section 10 of the

14 California Constitution and Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10.

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

18 privilege of conducting business activities in California because they currently maintain

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

23 charged herein occurred in this County.

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

3 and resides within the County of Los Angeles.

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

6 the County of Los Angeles.

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

9 of business in Los Angeles, California.

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

12 of business in Los Angeles, California.

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,

20 employees, independent contractors, co-conspirators, management companies, subsidiaries, and/or

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

20 PICTURES and/or BOLT PICTURES.

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

26 adequate levels of insurance.

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

3 PICTURES, and BOLT PICTURES

4 26. TANNHAUSER GATE INC. d/b/a IMPACT PICTURES has the same address as

5 PAUL ANDERSON and BOLT PICTURES.

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

9 of the Local Company would sanction a fraud and promote injustice.

10 28. These and other facts set forth herein justify treating Defendants and Local

11 Company as a "single-business-enterprise," and treating PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY

12 BOLT as alter egos of the Local Company, such that the Local Company is a mere shell or conduit

13 for the affairs of Defendants.

14 FACTS

15 A. Defendants Put Profit Ahead of Their Performers' Safety

16 29. On or about August 10, 2015, Plaintiff was employed as a stunt double for Milla

17 Jovovich's character, Alice, in The Final Chapter.

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

21 company, Sony Pictures Entertainment, in at least 17 other countries worldwide.

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

25 combined budget of 5288 million.

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

12 Proper Insurance, Relying Instead on a Shell Company for Asset Protection

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

15 would enable her to return to England.

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

2 pay United Kingdom rates.

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

7 the leading cast member.

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

22 like the United Kingdom, where Plaintiff had been working.

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

4 requirements and/or film industry practices and norms relating to insurance.

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

18 counter-signed in Plaintiffs presence.

19 44. The Agreement included certain key requirements and promises relating to the

20 procurement of insurance, including but not limited to, the following:

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

7 that it would be covered by production.

8 59. If PAUL ANDERSON, JEREMY BOLT or their representatives had informed

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

12 sufficient insurance to cover her damages in the event of catastrophic injury.

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

20 Proper Insurance for Their Performers

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

24 motorbike scene instead.

25 62. The motorbike sequence comprised of the following:

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

2 eastern side and one on the western side;

3 c. Plaintiff's start position was by the western bridge;

4 d. at the same time as Plaintiff was to commence her ride, a vehicle fitted with a

5 mechanical crane attached to a camera ("the Freedom Arm") was to commence

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

10 Freedom Arm to pass over her head at close quarters;

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

13 relative approach speed of 71 mph (115 km/h);

14 g. Plaintiff was to travel in a straight line only and there would be no left or right

15 swerving or evasive moves by the motorbike.

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

24 distance of 105 ft (31.94m).

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

5 assessment, planning, and decision making.

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

11 business. The third run was the accident run.

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

16 shorter than the other in the process.

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

20 performed life-saving surgery.

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

25 the meeting as a representative of PAUL ANDERSON, as well as others involved in the

26 development of The Final Chapter.

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

19 promise to care for Plaintiff on behalf of PAUL ANDERSON:

20 Jeremy Bolt: We obviously can't imagine the hell you're going


through. We're here on behalf of Paul and Milla and
21 everybody to just really say we are here with you.
22 Dave Grant: Olivia knows that as well. Everybody knows. I work in
the industry and know what it is like with crews...
23
Genevieve [I]t's a family. We're here to support each other.
24 Hofmyer:
25 77. Further on in the conversation, JEREMY BOLT, discussing Screen Gems, stated

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

3 litigation against them.

4 83. Mr. Grant and Plaintiff were given the impression, based on the aforementioned

5 meeting and subsequent communications with Defendants' representative, Genevieve Hofmyer,

6 that Defendants would be professionally embarrassed by the wholly inadequate insurance

7 arrangements and were concerned with the possibility of a backlash by the stunt performer

8 community, film crew and/or acting community.

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

12 needed medical care.

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

19 production company of which Genevieve Hofmyer was a director.

20 87. Plaintiff refused to sign the Confidentiality Agreement. In response, Defendants

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

24 Plaintiff sign the Confidentiality Agreement (and release).

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

23 employers' liability insurance in place.

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

4 insurance obtained by PAUL ANDERSON and JEREMY BOLT.

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.

6 Plaintiff met with JEREMY BOLT and others in London.

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

10 Confidentiality Agreement (and release).

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

16 earnings being approximately 9% of Plaintiff's annual earnings).

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

26 Accident Fund conceded the point.

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

3 Plaintiff with no remedy against the Local Company in South Africa.

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

11 condition, aggravation of her symptoms and further losses.

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

17 existence of employer's liability insurance, or insurance otherwise sufficient to cover Plaintiffs

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

21 Plaintiff, who was ignorant of them.

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

2 Breach of Oral Contract

3 (All Defendants)

4 101. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all prior paragraphs

5 as if fully set forth herein.

6 102. An oral agreement was entered between Plaintiffs' representatives and Defendants

7 on September 10, 2015.

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

16 under the contract.

17 105. As a result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be

18 established at trial.

19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

20 Promissory Estoppel

21 (All Defendants)

22 106. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

23 100 as if fully set forth herein.

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,

27 intending or reasonably expecting that it would be repeated to Plaintiff

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

3 injured or the Defendants' lack of adequate insurance.

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

8 under the foregoing promise.

9 111. Plaintiff's reliance on Defendants' promises was reasonable and foreseeable.

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

12 performance of the aforementioned promise.

13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

14 Fraud Based on Intentional Misrepresentation, False Promises, and Concealment

15 (All Defendants)

16 113. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

17 100 above, as if fully set forth herein.

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

3 members, including Plaintiff.

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

8 was a shell company for Defendants, without assets.

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

13 Plaintiff contracted was a shell company, without assets.

14 121. During the September 10, 2015 meeting, Defendants promised to provide full

15 financial support for all medical expenses related to Plaintiff's injuries.

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.

21 123. Ultimately, Defendants renounced their promise entirely. Only PAUL

22 ANDERSON continued to offer a small amount of support, which did not satisfy the promise.

23 124. Defendants intended that Plaintiff rely on the above-described misrepresentations,

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

2 deficient insurance with the media.

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

11 losses and noneconomic losses, which include mental distress.

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

14 Plaintiff's well-being. In making the foregoing material misrepresentations, omissions of material

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.

18 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

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

24 Plaintiffs claim for intentional misrepresentation.

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

27 filming of The Final Chapter.

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

8 members, including Plaintiff.

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

13 shell company without assets.

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

18 with which Plaintiff contracted was a shell company, without assets.

19 138. During the September 10, 2015 meeting, Defendants promised to provide full

20 financial support for all medical expenses related to Plaintiffs injuries.

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

3 obligations under the promise to cover medical expenses.

4 2. Defendants intended that Plaintiff rely on the above-described false representations,

5 promises, and omissions of material facts (collectively and separately, "Negligent

6 Mistrepresentations").

7 3. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants' Negligent Misrespresentations by,

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

10 details of the incident and deficient insurance with the media.

11 4. Plaintiff was harmed as a result of Defendants' Negligent Misrepresentations.

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.

15 5. Plaintiff's reliance on Defendants' Negligent Misrepresentations was a substantial

16 factor in causing her harm.

17 6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' Negligent Misrepresentations,

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.

20 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

21 Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and

22 against Defendants as follows:

23 a. Awarding Plaintiff damages in an amount to proven at trial;

24 b. Finding that Plaintiff is entitled to restitution or full performance of the

25 agreement;

26 c. Awarding Plaintiff pre judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

27 d. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

28
- 30 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

16639208-3
e. Awarding Plaintiff fees and costs allowable by law;

f. Awarding Plaintiff costs of suit herein incurred; and

g. Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Dated: September 10 , 2019


NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP

By: A-444W/
Stuart R. Fraenkel
Gabriel S. Barenfeld
Attorneys for Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: September 10, 2019 NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP

By: .44A.L././ /:3e


Stuart R. Fraenkel
Gabriel S. Barenfeld

- 31 -
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

16639208-3