Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al v. INTERSTATE SPECIALTY MARKETING, INC.

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
2:15-cv-02528 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

Petitioners, ACE American Insurance Company and West Chester Surplus Lines
Insurance Company (collectively "ACE" or "Petitioner"), by their attorneys. White and
Williams LLP, hereby petition this Court pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9 to confirm the Arbitration
Award issued in their favor and against Respondent, Interstate Specialty Marketing, Inc. d/b/a
Interstate Specialty Marketing and/or ISM ("ISM" or "Respondent"), and aver as follows:

PARTIES

1.    ACE is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2.    ISM is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with its
principal place of business in Tustin, California.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.    This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because
ACE is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ISM is a citizen of the State of
California, and the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest
and costs.
4.    Venue is proper in this District pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.
§ 9, because it is the District in which the arbitration award was made.
5.    Respondent ISM is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court under the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(e).

ARBITRATION AWARD

6.    In 2009, ACE and ISM entered into a written Producer Agreement under which
ACE authorized ISM to make submissions to ACE on behalf of ISM's clients for potential
insurance coverage provided by ACE.
7.    Pursuant to the Producer Agreement, ISM was required to collect all premiums
due in connection with any insurance policies that ACE issued to ISM's clients as a result of
ISM's submissions, and to remit those premiums, net of any compensation due to ISM, to ACE.
8.    In 2012 and 2013, ISM collected, inter alia, premium payments in the amount of
$224,703.33 from its clients for four (4) separate insurance policies ACE had issued as a result of
ISM's submissions.
9.    As a result, ISM was - and continues to be - obligated to remit $224,703.33 in
premium to ACE, but it has never done so.
10.    ISM's failure to remit the $224,703.33 in unpaid premium it owes ACE pursuant
to the Producer Agreement forced ACE to initiate an arbitration proceeding against ISM.
11.    Section VI of the Producer Agreement provides that any disputes between the
parties arising under the Producer Agreement were to be submitted to arbitration, that an
arbitration decision shall become binding upon all parties to the proceeding, and a judgment
upon any award issued by the arbitrators may be entered by any court having jurisdiction. A
true and correct copy of the arbitration provisions in the Producer Agreement is attached hereto
as Exhibit "A".
12.    On or about July 1, 2014, ACE submitted a Petition for Arbitration in accordance
with the Producer Agreement.
13.    ACE's Petition for Arbitration sought an award in ACE's favor and against ISM
in the principal amount due of $224,703.33, plus prejudgment interest and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as for any other relief that the arbitration panel
deemed appropriate.
14.    Pursuant to the terms of the Producer Agreement, ACE appointed an arbitrator,
ISM appointed an arbitrator, arid then those two arbitrators appointed an umpire to form a
panel of three arbitrators to preside over the arbitration proceeding arising from ACE's petition
to arbitrate its disputes with ISM.
15.    ISM actively participated in that arbitration proceeding.
16.    During the arbitration proceedings, ACE, ISM and the panel of three arbitrators
agreed that no arbitration hearing was necessary to resolve ACE's claim against ISM.
17.    ACE, ISM and the panel further agreed that ACE and ISM would each submit
briefs and evidence to the panel of arbitrators in support of their respective positions, which the
panel would consider before rendering its decision.
18.    ISM ultimately conceded its liability to ACE in writing for the full amount due,
without qualification.
19.    Following the parties' submission of briefs and supporting evidence, on April 9,
2015, the arbitrators appointed to hear the dispute deliberated and issued a "Memorandum
Order" (the "Award") in favor of ACE, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "B".
20.    The Award stated that the arbitrators found in favor of ACE and against ISM and
further ordered ISM to pay ACE the amount of $224,703.33 in damages, plus prejudgment
interest in the amount of $31,593.05, as well as the administrative costs of ADR Options, which
had provided the physical space for the arbitration proceedings.
21.    The total amount awarded ACE was $256,296.28.
22.    This Petition is authorized by the terms of the Producer Agreement and by § 9 of
the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
23.    This Petition is timely under § 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act because it has
been filed within one year after the Award was made.
WHEREFORE, ACE prays for relief as follows:
a)    That the Court issue an order confirming the Award, as authorized by § 9 of
the Federal Arbitration Act;
b)    That the Court enter judgment in favor of ACE that conforms to the Award;
and
c)    That the Court issue such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate.
 

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.