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

BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY v. CLASSICAL DETAILS

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: 
1:15-cv-13985 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Massachusetts District Court
Date Filed: 
Nov 30 2015

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company, as subrogee of Samuel Rahman, through
its undersigned counsel and for its Complaint against Defendant, Classical Details, alleges as
follows:

PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company, as subrogee of Samuel Rahman,
    is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
    with its principal place of business at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
  2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was authorized to issue insurance policies in
    the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
  3. Defendant, Classical Details, is a business entity organized and existing under the
    laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its principal place of business at 18 Rugdale

Road, Boston, MA 02124.

JURISDICTION

  1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as there
    is diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of the
    interest and costs of this action.
  2. Venue is properly laid in this judicial district as the events giving rise to
    Plaintiffs claim occurred in this judicial district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

  1. At all times material hereto. Plaintiff s insured, Samuel Rahman, owned the real
    and personal property located at 33 Edgehill Road, Brookline, MA 02445 (“Subject Property”).
  2. At all times material hereto. Plaintiff provided insurance coverage to Mr. Rahman
    for the Subject Property pursuant to policy number 268054109 (“Policy”).
  3. Prior to February 17, 2015, Plaintiffs insured hired Defendant to remove snow
    and ice from the Subject Property’s roof.
  4. On February 17, 2015, Defendant performed snow and ice removal work on the
    Subject Property’s roof.
  5. On February 17, 2015, Defendant used a torch to melt snow and ice on the
    Subject Property’s roof.
  6. Heat from the torch ignited combustible material on or about the Subject
    Property’s roof, causing a fire.
  7. The fire spread and caused substantial damage to the Subject Property, along with
    the personal property therein.
  8. Plaintiffs insured submitted a claim to Plaintiff for the damage caused by the

February 17, 2015 fire.

  1. Pursuant to the terms of the Policy, Plaintiff made payments to its insured in
    excess of $75,000.
  2. In accordance with the terms of the Policy, as well as the common law principles
    of legal and equitable subrogation. Plaintiff, by virtue of and to the extent of its payments, is
    subrogated to its insured’s rights.

COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE

  1. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs preceding Count I as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendant had a duty to use due care while performing work at the Subject
    Property.
  3. Defendant breached its duty to use due care while performing work at the Subject
    Property.
  4. The February 17, 2015 fire and resulting damage were the direct and proximate
    result of the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and/or negligent acts and omissions of
    Defendant and/or Defendant’s agents and/or employees, acting within the scope of their
    employment, as follows:
  1. Improperly removing snow and ice from the Subject Property’s roof;
  2. Using a torch in a way that exposed the Subject Property to an unreasonable risk
    of damage by fire;
  3. Failing to properly train its employees in the use of a torch;
  4. Failing to conduct a proper fire watch;
  5. Failing to properly supervise the use of a torch at the Subject Property; and
  6. Exposing the Subject Property to an unreasonable risk of damage by fire.
  1. As the direct and proximate result of these negligent, careless, and/or reckless acts
    and/or omissions, Plaintiff s insured suffered damage.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of
$75,000, together with interest, the costs of this action, and such other relief as deemed just and
proper under the law.

COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT

  1. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs preceding Count IT as if fully set forth

herein.

  1. On information and belief, Defendant had a contract with Plaintiffs insured to
    perform snow and ice removal work at the Subject Property.
  2. On information and belief. Defendant’s contract with Plaintiff s insured obligated
    Defendant to perform snow and ice removal work in a way that did not create an unreasonable
    risk of fire.
  3. Defendant breached its obligation to perform snow and ice removal work in a way
    that did not create an unreasonable risk of fire.
  4. Defendant’s breach caused the February 17, 2015 fire and resulting damage to the
    Subject Property.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of
$75,000, together with interest, the costs of this action, and such other relief as deemed just and
proper under the law.

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.