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

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. DISH NETWORK, LLC

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: 
1:13-cv-00560 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of Colorado
Date Filed: 
Mar 4 2013

"COUNT 1
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
28. ACE hereby incorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-27 as if fully set forth herein.

29. There exists a genuine and bona fide dispute, and an actual controversy and disagreement, between ACE and Dish with regard to whether ACE has an obligation under the ACE Policies to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish against the Underlying Lawsuit.

30. 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:
a. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage A to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because there is no alleged "property damage" and no alleged “bodily injury”.

b. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage A to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because there is no alleged "occurrence".

c. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage A to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because coverage is excluded by the “expected or intended” exclusion.

d. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage B to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because there is no alleged "personal and advertising injury."

e. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage B to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish, to the extent that the conduct alleged in the Underlying Lawsuits did not arise out of Dish’s business.

f. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage B to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because coverage is excluded by the "knowing violation of rights of another" exclusion.

g. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage B to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because coverage is excluded by the "material published prior to policy period" exclusion.

h. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage B to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because coverage is excluded by the "insureds in media and internet type businesses" exclusion.

i. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage A or Coverage B to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because coverage is excluded by the "Designated Professional Services" exclusion.

j. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage A or Coverage B of the 2006 Policy or 2007 Policy to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because coverage is excluded by the “violation of statutes that govern e-mails, fax, phone calls or other methods of sending material or information” exclusion.

k. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage A or Coverage B of the 2008 Policy to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because coverage is excluded by the “distribution in violation of statutes” exclusions.

l. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage A or Coverage B to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish to the extent that an “occurrence” under Coverage A or a “personal and advertising injury” offense under Coverage B did not take place during the policy period.

m. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage A or Coverage B to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because there are no damages alleged in the Underlying Lawsuit to which this insurance applies.

n. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage A or Coverage B to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because the relief sought in the Underlying Lawsuit are penalties to which this insurance does not apply.

o. That ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies’ Coverage A or Coverage B to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish because the relief sought in the Underlying Lawsuit are punitive damages to which this insurance does not apply.

p. That ACE has no obligation to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish if it is determined that Dish is not an insured under the ACE Policies.

q. That ACE has no duty to defend Dish under any other provision in the ACE Policies.

r. If the Court rules that ACE has no obligation under the ACE Policies to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish for any, all or some claims against Dish in the Underlying Lawsuit, that ACE is entitled to reimbursement of any and all defense costs that may have= reimbursed to Dish for defense of any or all such claims in the Underlying Lawsuit.

s. If the Court finds that ACE has any obligation under the ACE Policies to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish, that any such obligation applies only to claims in the Underlying Lawsuit for which there is a potential for coverage under each of the ACE Policies.

t. If the Court finds that ACE has any obligation under the ACE Policies to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish, that the obligation to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish does not commence until Dish has satisfied its $500,000.00 deductible obligation as to each plaintiff “person or organization” in the Underlying Lawsuit under each of the 2004 Policy and 2005 Policy by payment of reasonable and necessary defense costs.

u. If the Court finds that ACE has any obligation under the ACE Policies to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish, that the obligation to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish does not commence until Dish has satisfied its $500,000.00 deductible obligation under the commercial general liability policy number TC2J-GLSA-419J7603-TIL-03 effective from August 1, 2003 to August 1, 2004 issued by Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois to  EchoStar Communications Corp., by payment of reasonable and necessary defense costs.

v. If the Court finds that ACE has any obligation under the ACE Policies to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish, that ACE's obligations are reduced by the obligations of any other insurer that also provides coverage for Dish for the Underlying Lawsuit.

w. If the Court finds that ACE has any obligation under the ACE Policies to reimburse defense costs incurred in defending Dish, that ACE is only obligated to reimburse reasonable and necessary defense costs incurred by Dish."

 

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.