THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    VERNON and ELAINE ZOHFELD,
    )
    )
    Complainants,
    )
    )
    vs.
    )
    PCB No. 05-193
    )
    (Citizen’s Enforcement, Air)
    BOB DRAKE, WABASH VALLEY
    )
    SERVICE COMPANY, MICHAEL J.
    )
    PFISTER, NOAH D. HORTON, and
    )
    STEVE KINDER,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    NOTICE OF FILING
    TO:
    Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
    Carol Webb, Esq.
    Clerk of the Board
    Hearing Officer
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    100 West Randolph Street
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    Suite 11-500
    Post Office Box 19274
    Chicago, Illinois 60601
    Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
    (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)
    (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    WABASH VALLEY SERVICE COMPANY’S ANSWER
    AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINANTS’ COMPLAINT
    on behalf of
    Respondents, Wabash Valley Service Company, Michael J. Pfister, Noah D. Horton and Steve
    Kinder, a copy of which is herewith served upon you.
    Respectfully submitted,
    WABASH VALLEY SERVICE COMPANY,
    MICHAEL J. PFISTER, NOAH D. HORTON,
    and STEVE KINDER,
    Respondents,
    Dated: March 24, 2006
    By:/s/ Thomas G. Safley
    One of Their Attorneys
    Thomas G. Safley
    Gale W. Newton
    HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
    3150 Roland Avenue
    Post Office Box 5776
    Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
    (217) 523-4900
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    2
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, Thomas G. Safley, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached
    WABASH VALLEY SERVICE COMPANY’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
    DEFENSES TO COMPLAINANTS’ COMPLAINT upon:
    Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
    Clerk of the Board
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    100 West Randolph Street
    Suite 11-500
    Chicago, Illinois 60601
    Carol Webb, Esq.
    Hearing Officer
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    Post Office Box 19274
    Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
    via electronic mail on March 24, 2006, and upon:
    Stephen F. Hedinger, Esq.
    Hedinger Law Office
    2601 South Fifth Street
    Springfield, Illinois 62703
    Thomas H. Bryan, Esq.
    Fine & Hatfield, P.C.
    520 N.W. Second Street
    Post Office Box 779
    Evansville, Indiana 47705-0779
    by depositing said documents in the United States Mail in Springfield, Illinois, postage
    prepaid, on March 24, 2006.
    /s/ Thomas G. Safley
    Thomas G. Safley
    WVSC:002/Fil/NOF-COS – Wabash Valley Svc. Company’s Answer
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    VERNON and ELAINE ZOHFELD,
    )
    )
    Complainants,
    )
    )
    vs.
    )
    PCB No. 05-193
    )
    (Citizen’s Enforcement, Air)
    BOB DRAKE, WABASH VALLEY
    )
    SERVICE COMPANY, MICHAEL J.
    )
    PFISTER, NOAH D. HORTON, and
    )
    STEVE KINDER,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    WABASH VALLEY SERVICE COMPANY’S ANSWER AND
    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINANTS’ COMPLAINT
    NOW COMES Respondent WABASH VALLEY SERVICE COMPANY
    (“Wabash”), by and through its attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN, and hereby files
    its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complainants’ Complaint in this matter stating
    as follows:
    1.
    Paragraph 1 of Complainants’ Complaint states a legal conclusion to
    which no response is required. To the extent that paragraph 1 states any factual
    allegation, Wabash denies the same.
    2.
    Wabash admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    3.
    Wabash is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
    regarding the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Complainants’
    Complaint, and therefore, Wabash denies the same.
    4.
    Wabash admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    2
    5.
    Wabash admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    6.
    Wabash admits the allegations in paragraph 6 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    7.
    Wabash admits the allegations in paragraph 7 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    8.
    Wabash denies the allegations in paragraph 8 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    9.
    Wabash admits the allegations in paragraph 9 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    10.
    Wabash admits the allegations in paragraph 10 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    11.
    Wabash admits the allegations in paragraph 11 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    12.
    Wabash admits the allegations in paragraph 12 of Complainants’
    Complaint to the extent that Pfister and Horton were and/or are employed by Wabash to
    drive spray equipment and to apply agrichemicals at various times and locations.
    Wabash further admits that Kinder is, and was, a supervisor of Pfister and Horton. With
    regard to the allegation in paragraph 12 that “Kinder . . . is and was responsible for
    directing their [i.e., Pfister’s and Horton’s] work, including with respect to when and how
    to apply the agrichemicals to Drake’s field,” this allegation states a legal conclusion to
    which no response is required. Wabash denies all remaining allegations and inferences
    contained in paragraph 12 of Complainants’ Complaint.
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    3
    13.
    Wabash denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    14.
    Wabash denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    15.
    Wabash denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    16.
    Wabash denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    17.
    Wabash denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    18.
    In response to paragraph 18 of Complainants’ Complaint, Wabash denies
    that chemicals were “sprayed onto Zohfelds’ property.” The remainder of paragraph 18
    states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that paragraph
    18 states any further factual allegations, Wabash denies the same.
    19.
    Wabash denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of Complainants’
    Complaint.
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    4
    20.
    In response to paragraph 20 of Complainants’ Complaint, Wabash denies
    that it or anyone “caus[ed] and/or allow[ed] agrichemicals to drift and cloud onto the
    adjacent property owned and occupied by the Zohfelds.” The remainder of paragraph 20
    states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that paragraph
    20 states any further factual allegations, Wabash denies the same.
    WHEREFORE, the Respondent, WABASH VALLEY SERVICE COMPANY,
    respectfully requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board deny the relief sought by
    the Complainants, VERNON and ELAINE ZOHFELD.
    FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    As its First Affirmative Defense to the Complainants’ Complaint, the Respondent,
    Wabash, by its counsel, asserts that any claims in the Complainants’ Complaint that refer
    to any incident, act, omission or any matter whatsoever that occurred before May 8, 2000,
    are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and in support of this Affirmative
    Defense, Wabash states as follows:
    1.
    Complainants’ claims alleging air pollution are not brought by the State.
    2.
    Claims under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act that are brought
    by individuals are subject to the five-year statute of limitations set forth in
    735 ILCS 5/13-205.
    3.
    With regard to any claim made by Complainants in their Complaint
    relating to any alleged incident, act, omission or any matter whatsoever that occurred
    before May 8, 2000, Complainants failed to bring such claim within the time limit
    provided by said statute of limitations.
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006
    5
    4.
    As a result of Complainants’ failure to file their claims referring to any
    incident, act, omission or any matter whatsoever that occurred before May 8, 2000,
    within the time limit provided by said statute of limitations, any such claims are barred.
    WHEREFORE, the Respondent, WABASH VALLEY SERVICE COMPANY,
    respectfully requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board find in its favor and against
    Complainants on this Affirmative Defense and award it all relief just and proper in the
    premises.
    SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    Wabash reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses upon
    completion of discovery.
    Respectfully submitted,
    WABASH VALLEY SERVICE
    COMPANY,
    Respondent,
    By:/s/ Thomas G. Safley
    One of his Attorneys
    Dated: March 24, 2006
    Thomas G. Safley
    Gale W. Newton
    HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
    3150 Roland Avenue
    Post Office Box 5776
    Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
    (217) 523-4900
    WVSC:002/Filings/Answer - Wabash v02.doc
    ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 24, 2006

    Back to top