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

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. DANISCO, USA, 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: 
4:13-cv-01432 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Danisco USA, Inc.
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Missouri
Date Filed: 
Jul 23 2013

"COUNT 1
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

35. ACE hereby incorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-34 as if fully set forth herein.

36. There exists a genuine and bona fide dispute, and an actual controversy and disagreement, between ACE and Danisco with regard to whether ACE has an obligation to indemnify Danisco, for any amount in excess of Danisco’s Primary Policy, for Danisco’s settlement with Plaintiffs in the Coffer Matter.

37. Pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, ACE in good faith requests that the Court declare the following as to the Coffer Matter under the Policy:

a. That ACE has no obligation under the Policy to indemnify Danisco in the Coffer Matter because Danisco breached the Policy’s conditions, a condition precedent to entitlement to coverage under the Policy, when Danisco provided late notice to ACE of the Coffer Matter.
b. That ACE has no obligation under the Policy to indemnify Danisco in the Coffer Matter because Danisco’s late notice breach of the Policy’s conditions resulted in substantial prejudice to ACE because Danisco’s late notice resulted in lost opportunities to ACE.
c. That ACE has no obligation under the Policy to indemnify Danisco in the Coffer Matter because there was no occurrence during the Policy.
d. That ACE has no obligation under the Policy to indemnify Danisco in the Coffer Matter because coverage under the Policy is barred by the pollution exclusion.
e. That ACE has no obligation under the Policy to indemnify Danisco in the Coffer Matter to the extent that coverage is barred under the Primary Policy, to which the Policy follows form.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, ACE prays that the Court enter judgment:
A. Declaring that ACE has no obligation to indemnify Danisco for any amount arising from its settlement with Plaintiffs in the Coffer Matter;
B. Awarding ACE its costs and attorneys’ fees;
C. Awarding ACE such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and equitable."

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.