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

ANDREW SAFIR ET AL vs. BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY

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: 
BC468334 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Bankers Standard Insurance Company
Court Type: 
State
State Court: 
California.Supeior Court (Los Angeles County)
Date Filed: 
Aug 24 2011

"FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
13. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 12, as though set forth fully herein.

14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Bankers issued the Policy for good and valuable consideration, naming Plaintiffs as the insureds. The Policy has been in full force and effect at all relevant times, insuring Plaintiffs for the damage caused to the Property and its contents on May 16,2011.

15. Plaintiffs timely submitted the Claim to Bankers on the grounds that the damage to the Property and its contents is covered under the terms of the Policy.

16. Plaintiffs have performed all covenants and conditions required of it under the Policy.

17. Bankers has breached its contractual duties to Plaintiffs under the Policy by failing to provide coverage for the damage to the Property and its contents, and failing to reimburse Plaintiffs for their expenses in remediating the damage to the Property.

18. As a direct and proximate result of Bankers' breach of contract, Plaintiffs have been damaged in a sum which is currently unascertainable. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to
amend this Complaint when such sum can be reasonably ascertained.

 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)

19. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 18, as though set forth fully herein.

20. Implied into every contract of insurance is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing which obligated the insurer, Bankers in this instance, to act at all times in good faith towards its insured. Plaintiffs reasonably expected that Bankers would protect it against the sort of damage to the Property and its contents that occurred on and around May 16, 2011, and that Bankers would deal with Plaintiffs fairly, equitably and in good faith. This expectation was brought about and intended by Bankers as a result of the contractual language in the Policy.

21. Bankers has breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, most notably by failing to provide Plaintiffs with coverage on the Claim for damage to the Property and its contents, and failing to reimburse Plaintiffs for their expenses in remediating the damage to the Property.

22. The acts and omissions of Bankers as set forth herein were committed in bad faith, intentionally and/or with conscious and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' rights. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Bankers intentionally and willfully refused to acknowledge its obligations to provide coverage to Plaintiffs on the Claim. Plaintiffs are further
informed and believe, and on that basis allege, the Bankers' sole motivation in denying the Claim and/or stonewalling any good faith consideration of coverage was to save money that should have been paid to Plaintiffs under the Policy, for which Bankers was paid substantial premiums to guarantee such coverage when, and if, needed.

23. As a direct and proximate result of Bankers' breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing contained in the Policy, Plaintiffs have suffered general and
consequential damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state the actual, amount of damages
when known.

24. Bankers' conduct described above was intended by Bankers to cause injury to Plaintiffs and constituted despicable conduct carried on by Bankers in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights such as to constitute malice, oppression or fraud as defined by California Civil Code § 3294. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive and exemplary damages against Bankers in an amount sufficient to punish Bankers and deter it and others from engaging in similar, unlawful conduct in the future.

 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief)

25. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 24, as though set forth fully herein.

26. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Bankers, on the other hand, relating to their respective legal rights and obligations under
the Policy.

27. Plaintiffs contend that, pursuant to the terms of the Policy, Bankers has a duty to provide coverage on the Claim.

28. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Bankers disputes the above-alleged contentions.

29. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under the Policy and specifically seek an adjudication that Bankers is obligated to provide coverage under
the Policy with respect to the Claim."

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.