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


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 or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
2:12-cv-00706 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Date Filed: 
Feb 9 2012

"7. In 2004, Sasson was developing a condominium tower in Las Vegas, Nevada.

8. In connection with the condominium tower development, and at the request of Sasson, ACE offered to Sasson a contract entitled "Funded Multi-Line Deductible Program" (the "Contract"), which Sasson accepted. A copy of the signed Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

9. The Contract set forth that ACE would provide for the benefit of Sasson certain policies of insurance, including a General Liability policy of insurance and a Worker's Compensation policy of insurance covering certain periods.

10. Pursuant to the Contract, ACE sent invoices to Sasson in February 2009, which reflected an outstanding balance due ACE for the insurance policies of $729,491.37.

11. Sasson did not pay the invoices sent by ACE.

12. The Contract provided that any disputes between the parties arising under the Contract were to be submitted to binding arbitration, and a judgment upon any award issued by a panel of arbitrators was to be entered by any court to competent jurisdiction.

13. On May 24, 2010, ACE sent Sasson a "Demand for Arbitration" in accordance with Article IV, Section 5 of the Contract.

14. A panel of the three arbitrators was appointed pursuant to the terms of the Contract to preside over the arbitration proceeding arising from ACE's demand to arbitrate its disputes with Sasson.

15. Despite many attempts to solicit Sasson's participation in the arbitration proceedings, Sasson failed to respond to ACE's demand for arbitration.

'16. An Arbitration hearing was conducted on June 1, 2011, where the arbitrators considered the written evidence, the testimony presented by certain witnesses, and any submissions by any party present at the hearing.

17. On August 22, 2011, the arbitrators appointed to hear the dispute issued a "Final Order" (the "Award") in favor of ACE, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

18. The Award stated that the arbitrators heard the testimony of the witnesses presented by on behalf of ACE, and memorialized in the Award that such witnesses testified to the following:
(a) Sasson has previously paid all amounts due and owing under the Contract prior to February, 2009;
(b) Sasson never challenged the amount due to ACE on the outstanding balance under the Contract;
(c) Sasson never provided a substantive explanation for its failure to pay the outstanding balance due to ACE under the Contract; and
(d) Sasson's representative reported to ACE that Sasson believed it had paid enough to ACE under the Contract.

19. The Award ordered Sasson to pay ACE the amount of $729,491.37 as damages due to the breach of Contract by Sasson, plus interest of $295,626.24 (at the rate of 1.5% per month since the breach on March 12, 2009), plus attorneys fees of $9,359.35 which ACE incurred as a consequence of having to undertake the arbitration proceeding.

20. Sasson has failed to voluntarily satisfy the Award in the time since it was issue, despite demand therefore being made by Sasson.

21. This petition is authorized by the terms of the Contract, and §9 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

22. This petition is timely under §9 of the Federal Arbitration Act as it is filed within one year after the Award was made."

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.