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

AMI ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK, INC v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al

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: 
4:12-cv-15212 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
AMI Entertainment Network, Inc
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Michigan
Date Filed: 
Nov 27 2012

"FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Contract
(Against Zurich)
37. Plaintiff AMI repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 36 above as if fully set forth herein.
38. Zurich is obligated under the Primary Policy, and agreed in the December 2011 Letter, to provide AMI a full defense in the Underlying Action.
39. Zurich has breached its duty to provide a full defense of the Underlying Action by refusing to pay for any of AMI’s defense costs incurred since notice and by failing to provide for AMI’s ongoing defense.
40. AMI has satisfied all necessary terms and conditions of the Primary Policy.
41. AMI is entitled to recover all damages proximately caused by Zurich’s breach of contract, including, inter alia, the full amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by AMI for its defense in the Underlying Action since notice to Zurich and prejudgment interest.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Judgment
(Against Zurich)
42. Plaintiff AMI repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 41 above as if fully set forth herein.
43. Zurich is obligated under the Primary Policy, and agreed in the December 2011 Letter, to provide AMI a full defense in the Underlying Action.
44. Zurich has breached its duty to provide a full defense of the Underlying Action by refusing to pay for AMI’s defense costs incurred since notice and by failing to provide for AMI’s ongoing defense.
45. Zurich has not agreed to pay AMI’s legal liability, if any, for the Underlying Action.
46. AMI has satisfied all necessary terms and conditions of the Primary Policy.
47. As a result of the foregoing, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between AMI and Zurich regarding Zurich’s obligations to provide full and unconditional defense and indemnity coverage to AMI in connection with the Underlying Action.
48. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, AMI is entitled to a declaration by the Court of the extent of Zurich’s obligation to defend AMI in connection with the Underlying Action.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Judgment
(Against Westchester)
49. Plaintiff AMI repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 48 above as if fully set forth herein.
50. Westchester is obligated under the Umbrella Policy to provide AMI a defense of any suit seeking damages because of “personal injury” or “advertising injury” where either (1) damages are sought for “’personal injury’, or ‘advertising injury’ which are not covered by the Underlying Insurance’” or (2) “the applicable limits of insurance of the underlying insurance. . . have been exhausted by payments.”
51. In the event AMI incurs liability, the Umbrella Policy also obligates Westchester to “pay on behalf of the ‘Insured’ those sums in excess of the ‘Retained Limit’ which the ‘Insured’, by reason of liability imposed by law, or assumed by the ‘Insured’ under contract prior to the ‘Occurrence’, shall become legally obligated to pay as damages for: . . . (b) ‘Personal Injury’ caused by an offense committed during the ‘Policy Period’; or (c) ‘Advertising Injury’ caused by an act committed during the ‘Policy Period’.”
52. The Underlying Action may result in exhaustion of the Zurich Primary Policy or otherwise require Westchester to provide defense or indemnity coverage under the Umbrella Policy.
53. Westchester has not yet recognized its coverage obligations under the Umbrella Policy for the Underlying Action.
54. AMI has satisfied all necessary terms and conditions of the Umbrella Policy.
55. As a result of the foregoing, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between AMI and Westchester regarding Westchester’s obligations to provide defense and indemnity coverage to AMI in connection with the Underlying Action.
56. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, AMI is entitled to a declaration by the Court of the extent of Westchester’s obligation to defend AMI in connection with the Underlying 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.