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

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. ONEBEACON U.S. HOLDINGS, 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: 
2:12-cv-04724 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Date Filed: 
Aug 17 2012

"COUNT I
Injunction

20. The preceding and succeeding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.

21. OneBeacon has undertaken wrongful actions with the plain purpose of interfering with and causing substantial harm to the business interests of ACE.

22. OneBeacon must be enjoined from continuing its campaign to steal ACE's clients and to make use of ACE's confidential and proprietary business information.

23. An injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm which could not be compensated by damages. Greater injury would result by refusing it than by granting it. An injunction properly restores the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct. The activity sought to be restrained is actionable and an injunction is reasonably suited to abate that activity.

WHEREFORE, ACE respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in its favor and against OneBeacon enjoining it from making use of or publishing the confidential and proprietary business information of ACE, from further solicitation of ACE's clients, and for other relief as ACE may seek and as the Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT II
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

24. The preceding and succeeding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.

25. The information being used by OneBeacon and the Surety Employees in competing with ACE—including, but not limited to, client information, strategic planning information, pricing information, underwriting information, rating information, and reinsurance information—constitutes trade secrets within the meaning of various state laws, including the\ Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

26. The confidential status of this information was acknowledged in writing by the Surety Employees, and ACE took reasonable steps under the circumstances to safeguard the secrecy of this information, which derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.

27. Prior to their employment with ACE, the Surety Employees had no knowledge of ACE's trade secrets and other proprietary information.

28. During their employment and upon their departure from ACE, the Surety Employees misappropriated trade secrets and other proprietary information, which are invaluable assets developed over time as the result of a significant expenditure of ACE's money and other resources.

29. The Surety Employees misappropriated these trade secrets at the direction of and for the benefit of OneBeacon for use in the formation of OneBeacon's new surety department.

30. OneBeacon has used these trade secrets in violation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

31. By reason of OneBeacon's bad acts, ACE has been deprived of its trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information, for which ACE expended substantial sums of money and devoted significant resources to cultivate and develop.

32. ACE has suffered and will continue to suffer damages as a result of OneBeacon's intentional and unauthorized use and misappropriation of trade secrets.

33. OneBeacon's conduct was and is willful and malicious.
WHEREFORE, ACE respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against OneBeacon in an amount in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), including costs, interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and exemplary damages, as well as any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.

COUNT III
Interference with Contractual Relations

34. The preceding and succeeding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.

35. At all relevant times, OneBeacon was aware that ACE had ongoing and valuable business contracts and relationships with its clients.

36. On information and belief, OneBeacon's bad acts were intended to harm the existing relationships of ACE with its clients and were intended to prevent future and ongoing relations from taking shape and being realized between ACE and its clients.

37. OneBeacon was without privilege or justification in taking these actions.

38. As a direct result of OneBeacon's bad acts, ACE has and continues to suffer harm, loss, and damages.

WHEREFORE, ACE respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in
its favor and against OneBeacon in an amount in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000.00), including costs, interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and punitive damages, as well
as any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.

COUNT IV
Aiding and Abetting Duty of Loyalty Violation

39. The preceding and succeeding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.

40. OneBeacon induced the Surety Employees to violate their duty of loyalty to ACE, through actions such as withholding information that ACE would have wanted to know, by soliciting subordinate employees to leave ACE, by converting ACE documents and deleting ACE documents, thereby aiding and abetting the Surety Employees' violation of the duty of loyalty."

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.