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

AGCS MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY et al v. ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

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-01160 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
AGCS Marine Insurance Company
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Virginia
Date Filed: 
Sep 17 2013

"COUNT I
PLAINTIFFS v. DEFENDANT
NEGLIGENCE
18. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.

19. The sewage back-flow and resulting damages to the Property were proximately caused by the negligence, carelessness, gross negligence and/or reckless disregard for the plaintiffs' insured's property by Defendant and its agents, workmen, and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment in:
a) Failing to properly operate, inspect, maintain and test its sewage treatment plant and associated piping system;
b) Failing to properly maintain and repair the pumps contained within its sewage treatment plant;
c) Failing to keep its pumps in serviceable condition;
d) Permitting a blockage of the sewer line;
e) Failing to properly supervise its employees with respect to their work and activities in responding to a blockage in the sewer line;
f) Ignoring warnings from its employees of problems and concerns with the equipment, including pumps, that were integral to its sewage treatment plant;
g) Negligently bypassing safety features of the equipment within its sewage treatment plant that allowed the equipment to subsequently fail;
h) Failing to repair or replace equipment within its sewage treatment plant that it had been forewarned was failing and/or not working properly; and
i) Such other and further negligent acts and omissions which may be revealed through discovery.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, AGCS Marine Insurance Company and Westchester Fire Insurance Company d/b/a ACE Westchester, demand judgment against defendant, Arlington County Virginia, in an amount in excess of $1,000,000 together with interest and the costs of this action.

COUNT II
PLAINTIFFS v. DEFENDANT
INVERSE CONDEMNATION

20. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.

21. The sewage treatment plant was maintained for the public purpose of supplying the county with water and sewage disposal services.

22. As described above, the sewage back-flow was caused by Defendant's failure to properly maintain and operate the Subject Plant.

23. The sewage back-flow adversely affected plaintiffs insured's ability to exercise its property rights.

24. Plaintiffs, as the insurers of the property damaged by the sewage back-flow, have standing to bring an inverse condemnation action as the subrogee of its insured.

25. The failure of the Subject Plant, and the resulting sewage back-flow, was a substantial cause of plaintiffs' damages.

26. The failure of the Subject Plant, and the resulting sewage back-flow, resulted in a taking and/or damaging of the private property of Plaintiff s Insured, without just compensation, in violation of Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, AGCS Marine Insurance Company and Westchester Fire Insurance Company d/b/a ACE Westchester, demand judgment against Defendant, Arlington County Virginia, in an amount in excess of $1,000,000 together with interest and the costs of this action."

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.