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

CENTURION REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC et al v. ARCH 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: 
3:16-cv-00218 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Northern District of California
Date Filed: 
Jan 13 2016

Plaintiffs CENTURION REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, CENTURION REAL
ESTATE INVESTORS IV, LLC, MISSION PLACE, LLC, AMERICAN GUARANTEE &
LIABILTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, and
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
complains of Defendant ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY (“Arch”), and alleges as follows:

  1. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, is and
    was at all time relevant hereto a business entity incorporated under the laws of the State of
    Delaware with its principal place of business in the State of New York.
  1. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff Centurion Partners, LLC, is and was at all time
    relevant hereto a business entity incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
    principal place of business in the State of New York.
  2. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff Centurion Real Estate Investors IV, LLC, is and
    was at all time relevant hereto a business entity incorporated under the laws of the State of
    Delaware with its principal place of business in the State of New York.
  3. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff Mission Place, LLC, is and was at all time
    relevant hereto a business entity incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
    principal place of business in the State of New York.
  4. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff American Guarantee & Liability Insurance
    Company, is and was at all time relevant hereto a business entity incorporated under the laws of the
    State of Illinois with its principal place of business in the State of Illinois.
  5. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company, is and
    was at all time relevant hereto a business entity incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois
    with its principal place of business in the State of Illinois.
  6. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company
    is and was at all time relevant hereto a business entity incorporated under the laws of the State of
    Georgia with its principal place of business in the State of Pennsylvania.
  7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Arch Insurance Company
    is and was at all time relevant hereto a business entity incorporated under the laws of the State of
    Missouri with its principal place of business in the State of Missouri.
  8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe Arch is authorized to transact business and has
    transacted business in the State of California.

JURSIDICTION AND VENUE

  1. This action involves an amount in controversy in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand
    Dollars ($75,000.00) and is an action between citizens of different states. As such, diversity
    jurisdiction is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
  2. Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, in that the

subject matter of this action arose in the County of San Francisco, California. Specifically the
underlying civil lawsuits giving rise to the insurance dispute that are the subject of this declaratory
relief action, captioned Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. CaleUus Third and King, et ai., San
Francisco County Superior Court Docket Number CGC 08-478453, Zucker, et al. v. CaleUus
Development Corp., et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Docket Number CGC 06-455352
(.Zucker I), and Zucker, et al. v. CaleUus Development Corp., et al., San Francisco County Superior
Court Docket Number CGC 08-471272 (Zucker II) (the “Underlying Actions”), were all litigated in
San Francisco County. Moreover, the dispute in the Beacon, Zucker I and Zucker II centered on the
construction and sale of condominiums located in San Francisco, California. Consequently, venue
is proper in this district.

FACTS

  1. Plaintiffs CENTURION REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, CENTURION REAL
    ESTATE INVESTORS IV, LLC, and MISSION PLACE, LLC, (collectively, “Insured Plaintiffs”)
    were named defendants in a civil action titled Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Catellus
    Third and King, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Docket Number CGC 08-478453

(“Beacon Action”).

  1. In the Beacon Action, plaintiffs alleged as against the Insured Plaintiffs multiple
    counts, including violations of California Civil Code Sections 895, et seq., negligence per se for
    violation of statute, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
    violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 11018.5, and concealment and
    misrepresentation, among other things.
  2. Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, were named
    defendants in two other civil actions titled Zucker, et al. v. Catellus Development Corp., et al., San
    Francisco County Superior Court Docket Number CGC 06-455352 (Zucker I) and Zucker, et al. v.
    Catellus Development Corp., et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Docket Number CGC OS-
    471272 (Zucker IT) (collectively, Zucker I and Zucker II will be referred to herein as the “Zucker
    Actions”).
  3. In the First Amended Complaint in Zucker I, plaintiffs alleged as against Centurion

Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and untrue
or misleading advertising, unfair competition, strict liability, negligence, and failure to adequately
disclose, among other things.

  1. In the First Amended Complaint in Ziicker II, plaintiffs alleged as against Centurion
    Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, failure to
    disclose/concealment, untrue or misleading advertising, unfair competition, strict liability
    construction defect, negligence construction defect, breach of warranty, constructive fraud, and
    breach of good faith and fair dealing, among other things.
  2. Plaintiffs AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
    ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, and WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES
    INSURANCE COPANY (collectively, “Carrier Plaintiffs”) issued liability policies to one or more
    Insured Plaintiffs.
  3. Carrier Plaintiffs agreed to defend Insured Plaintiffs in the Ziicker Actions and/ or
    the Beacon Action pursuant to a full reservation of rights, and expended substantial sums doing so.
  4. Carrier Plaintiffs paid defense fees and costs on behalf of Insured Plaintiffs in the
    Beacon Action and the Ziicker Actions for the defense of claims which were not potentially covered
    under the policies issued by Carrier Plaintiffs.
  5. Insured Plaintiffs incurred fees and costs related to their defense in the Beacon
    Action and the Zucker Actions for which they were not compensated by any insurer.
  6. Insured Plaintiffs’ liability in the Beacon Action was resolved by way of a settlement
    in the amount of $3,775,000. The $3,775,000 settlement was paid by Insured Plaintiffs and Carrier
    Plaintiffs. The Carrier Plaintiff’s reserved lights regarding their settlement contributions.
  7. Arch issued a policy entitled “Private Company Management Liability Insurance” to
    one or more Insured Plaintiffs, policy number PCD 0015105-00, effective from May 3, 2006, to
    May 3, 2007 (the “2006-07 Arch Policy”).
  8. Arch issued a policy entitled “Private Company Management Liability Insurance” to
    one or more Insured Plaintiffs, policy number PCD 0015105-01, effective from May 3, 2007, to
    May 3, 2008 (the “2007-08 Arch Policy”).
  1. Arch issued a policy entitled “Private Company Management Liability Insurance” to
    one or more Insured Plaintiffs, policy number PCD 0015105-02, effective from May 3, 2008, to
    May 3, 2009 (the “2008-09 Arch Policy”).
  2. Arch issued a policy entitled “Private Company Management Liability Insurance” to
    one or more Insured Plaintiffs, policy number PCD 0015105-03, effective from May 3, 2009, to
    May 3, 2010 (the “2009-10 Arch Policy”) (the 2006-07 Arch Policy, the 2007-08 Arch Policy, the
    2008-09 Arch Policy, and the 2009-10 Arch Policy, collectively referred to as the “Arch Policies”).
  3. Under the 2006-07 Arch Policy, the 2007-08 Arch Policy, and the 2008-09 Arch
    Policy, Arch agreed as follows:

The Insurer will pay on behalf of the Private Company a Loss for which the Private
Company shall become legally obligated to pay as a result of a Claim first made
during the Policy Period or Discovery Period, if applicable, against the Private
Company for a Wrongful Act which takes place during or prior to the Policy Period.

The term “Loss” is defined to mean:

. . . damages, judgments (including pre/post judgment interest on a covered
judgment), settlements and “Defense Costs” for which the Insureds become legally
obligated to pay.

The term “Wrongful Act” is defined to mean:

Any actual or alleged breach of duty, neglect, error, misstatement, misleading statement,
omission or act by the Insured Persons in their respective capacities as such or, with respect
to Coverage C, by the Private Company.

  1. Under the 2009-10 Arch Policy, Arch agreed to the following:

The insurer shall pay Loss on behalf of an Insured Organization resulting from a
Claim first made against such Insured Organization during the Policy Period or
Extended Reporting Period, if applicable, for a Wrongful Act by an Insured
Organization.

The term Loss is defined to mean:

the amount that the Insureds area legally obligated to pay resulting from a claim,
including without limitation, damages, settlement, judgments, pre- and post-
judgment interest. Defense Costs and Investigation Costs.

Loss shall include punitive and exemplary damages where insurable by law. The
insurability of such damages shall be governed by the laws of any applicable
jurisdiction that permits coverage of such damages . . .

The term Wrongful Act is defined to mean:

act, error, omission, misstatement, misleading statement, neglect or breach of duty
by Insured Persons in their capacity as such or in an Outside Capacity or, with
respect to insuring agreement C, by any Insured Organization . . .

The 2009-10 Policy also obligates Arch as follows:

The Insurer shall have the right and duty to defend each Claim covered under a
Liability Coverage Part for which the Insurer receives notice, even if such Claim is
groundless, false or fraudulent. The Insurer may make any investigation it deems
appropriate.

  1. The defense and indemnity of the Insured Plaintiffs was tendered to Arch in the
    Beacon Action.
  2. The defense and indemnity of Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission
    Place, LLC was tendered to Arch in the Zucker Actions.
  3. Arch acknowledged receipt of the tenders and admitted in written correspondence
    that: the Beacon Action was timely and properly reported to Arch; the Beacon Action involved a
    “Claim” against the Insured Plaintiffs; the “Claim” was first made during the “Policy Period”; the
    Beacon Action involved one or more alleged “Wrongful Acts” committed by the Insured Plaintiffs;
    and that there was potential coverage for the Beacon Action. (Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a
    copy of a letter dated November 4, 2008, from counsel for Arch, regarding coverage for the Beacon
    Action under the Arch Policies.)
  4. Arch acknowledged receipt of the tenders and admitted in written correspondence
    that: the Zucker Actions were timely and properly reported to Arch; the Zucker Actions involved a
    “Claim” against Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC; the “Claim” was
    first made during the “Policy Period”; the Zucker Actions involved one or more alleged “Wrongful
    Acts” committed by Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC; and that there
    was potential coverage for the Zucker Actions. (Attached hereto as Exhibit B are copies of letters
    dated October 17, 2006, and November 4, 2008, from counsel for Arch, regarding coverage for the
    Zucker Actions under the Arch Policies.)
  5. Pursuant to the terms of the Arch Policies, Arch had the obligation to defend and/or

pay for the cost of the defense of one or more of the Insured Plaintiffs in connection with the

Beacon Action. Nonetheless, and despite prior admissions made by Arch regarding coverage,

Arch ultimately refused to defend and/or pay for the cost of the defense of one or more of the
Insured Plaintiffs in connection with the Beacon Action

  1. Pursuant to the terms of the Arch Policies, Arch had the obligation to defend and/or
    pay for the cost of the defense of Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, in
    connection with the Zucker Actions. Nonetheless, and despite prior admissions made by Arch
    regarding coverage, Arch ultimately refused to defend and/or pay for the cost of the defense of
    Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, in connection with the Zucker
    Actions.
  2. Pursuant to the terms of the Arch Policies, Arch had the obligation to pay for the
    settlement of claims against the Insured Plaintiffs in the Beacon Action. Nonetheless, and despite
    prior admissions made by Arch regarding coverage. Arch ultimately refused to pay for any portion
    of the settlement of the claims against the Insured Plaintiffs in connection with the Beacon Action.
  3. Arch breached the Arch Policies by unreasonably and without just cause withholding
    benefits, including, but not limited to a refusal to pay for the cost of the defense of the Insured
    Plaintiffs in the Beacon Action and Zucker Actions and a refusal to pay for the settlement of claims
    against the Insured Plaintiffs in the Beacon Action.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief - Defense Expenditures in Beacon Action

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set

forth.

  1. A controversy has arisen between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Arch, on the other,
    in that Plaintiffs contend that Arch had a coverage obligation to defend and/or pay for the cost of
    the defense of the Insured Plaintiffs in connection with the Beacon Action and Arch contends that it
    did not have such a coverage obligation.
  2. Plaintiffs assert and contend that a declaratory judgment is both necessary and proper
    at this time for the Court to determine the respective rights and liabilities of the parties regarding
    Arch’s duty to pay for the cost to defend the Insured Plaintiffs in the Beacon Action.

Ill

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief - Defense Expenditures in Zucker Actions

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set

forth.

  1. A controversy has arisen between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Arch, on the other,
    in that Plaintiffs contend that Arch had a coverage obligation to defend and/or pay for the cost of
    the defense of Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, in connection w ith the
    Zucker Actions, and Arch contends that it did not have such a coverage obligation.
  2. Plaintiffs assert and contend that a declaratory judgment is both necessary and proper
    at this time for the Court to determine the respective rights and liabilities of the parties regarding
    Arch’s duty to pay for the cost to defend Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place,
    LLC, in the Zucker Actions.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief - Settlement Payment in Beacon Action

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set

forth.

  1. A controversy has arisen between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Arch, on the other,
    in that Plaintiffs contend that Arch had a coverage obligation to pay for the settlement of the claims
    against the Insured Plaintiffs in connection with the Beacon Action, and Arch contends that it did
    not have such a duty.
  2. Plaintiffs assert and contend that a declaratory judgment is both necessary and proper
    at this time for the Court to determine the respective l ights and liabilities of the parties regarding
    Arch’s duty to pay for the settlement of the claims against the Insured Plaintiffs in connection with
    the Beacon Action.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Contract - Beacon Action

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set

forth.

  1. Insured Plaintiffs tendered their defense and indemnity in the Beacon Action to

Arch.

  1. Arch was obligated to pay for the cost of the defense of the Insured Plaintiffs in the
    Beacon Action.
  2. Arch was obligated to pay for the settlement of claims against the Insured Plaintiffs
    in connection with the Beacon Action.
  3. Arch breached the Arch Policies by refusing and failing to perform its obligation to
    pay for the cost of the defense of and the settlement of claims against the Insured Plaintiffs in
    connection with the Beacon Action.
  4. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Arch, Insured Plaintiffs have been
    deprived of the benefit of the insurance coverage to which it is entitled and have sustained actual
    damages. This breach has been the legal and proximate cause of actual damages to Insured
    Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at the time of trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional limit
    of this Court, including, but not limited to, expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
    connection with the Beacon Action, the payment made towards the settlement of the Beacon
    Action, and other foreseeable economic losses, all in a sum to be shown by proof at trial.
  5. Asa direct and proximate result of the conduct of Arch, Insured Plaintiffs have
    sustained additional damages, plus interest, in an amount to be shown by proof at the time of trial.

FIFTHCAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Contract - Zucker Actions

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set

forth.

  1. Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, tendered their
    defense in the Zucker Actions to Arch.
  2. Arch was obligated to pay for the cost of the defense of Centurion Real Estate
    Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, in the Zucker Actions.
  3. Arch breached the Arch Policies by refusing and failing to perform its obligation to
    pay for the cost of the defense of Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, in
    connection with the Zucker Actions.
  1. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Arch, Centurion Real Estate
    Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, have been deprived of the benefit of the insurance
    coverage to which it is entitled and have sustained actual damages. This breach has been the legal
    and proximate cause of actual damages to Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place,
    LLC, in an amount to be determined at the time of trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional limit of
    this Court, including, but not limited to, expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection
    with the Zucker Actions, and other foreseeable economic losses, all in a sum to be shown by proof
    at trial.
  2. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Arch, Centurion Real Estate
    Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, have sustained additional damages, plus interest, in an
    amount to be shown by proof at the time of trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set

forth.

  1. The Arch Policies contain an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
    whereby Arch promised, among other things, to pay for the cost of the defense of the Beacon
    Action and Zucker Actions and the settlement in the Beacon Action, and to give at least as much
    consideration to Insured Plaintiffs’ interests as it does to its own.
  2. Arch has breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to Insured Plaintiffs
    by: unreasonably and without just cause withholding policy benefits, including, but not limited to a
    refusal to pay for the cost of the defense in the Beacon Action and Zucker Actions and a refusal to
    pay for the settlement in the Beacon Action; forcing Insured Plaintiffs to incur and pay for the cost
    of the defense and the settlement in the Beacon Action and Zucker Actions; and by placing its own
    interests ahead of those Insured Plaintiffs.
  3. Insured Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon alleges that Arch has

breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to Insured Plaintiffs by other acts or omissions

of which Insured Plaintiffs are presently unaware. Insured Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to

amend this Complaint at such time as it discovers the other acts or omissions of Insured Plaintiffs
constituting such breach.

  1. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful and unreasonable conduct of Arch,
    Insured Plaintiffs have suffered actual and consequential damages and expenses, including, but not
    limited to expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the Beacon Action and
    Zucker Actions, the payment made towards the settlement of the Beacon Action, and other
    foreseeable economic losses, all to Insured Plaintiffs’ damage, in an amount to be shown by proof at
    the time of trial.
  2. Insured Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any and all attorney’s fees and costs that it
    incurs in its efforts to obtain policy benefits that have been wrongfully withheld by Arch.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Equitable Subrogation - Beacon Action

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set

forth.

  1. Arch was obligated to provide insurance coverage to Insured Plaintiffs in connection
    with the Beacon Action.
  2. Insured Plaintiffs performed all conditions giving rise to Arch’s obligation to provide
    insurance coverage to Insured Plaintiffs in the Beacon Action. Alternatively, Insured Plaintiffs have
    been excused from performing any conditions giving rise to Arch’s obligation to provide coverage.
  3. Defendants have breached their obligation to Insured Plaintiffs by wrongfully and
    unreasonably refusing to provide coverage, as herein alleged.
  4. As a result of Arch’s wrongful denial of coverage. Carrier Plaintiffs, without acting
    as a volunteer, were forced to contribute amounts towards the defense and settlement of Insured
    Plaintiffs in the Beacon Action.
  5. Carrier Plaintiffs’ payments towards the defense and settlement of Insured Plaintiffs
    included amounts Carrier Plaintiffs were not obligated to pay under their respective policies.
  6. Due to their payments. Carriers Plaintiffs are subrogated by law and principles of

equity to the rights of Insured Plaintiffs against Arch pursuant to their respective policies with

respect to the Beacon Action.

  1. Carrier Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of Arch’s actions and conduct.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Equitable Subrogation - Zucker Actions

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set

forth.

  1. Arch was obligated to provide insurance coverage to Centurion Real Estate Partners,
    LLC, and Mission Place, LLC in connection with the Zucker Actions.
  2. Insured Plaintiffs performed all conditions giving rise to Arch’s obligation to provide
    insurance coverage to Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, in the Zucker
    Actions. Alternatively, Insured Plaintiffs have been excused from performing any conditions
    giving rise to Arch’s obligation to provide coverage.
  3. Defendants have breached their obligation to Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC,
    and Mission Place, LLC, by wrongfully and unreasonably refusing to provide coverage, as herein
    alleged.
  4. As a result of Arch’s wrongful denial of coverage, Carrier Plaintiffs, without acting
    as a volunteer, were forced to contribute amounts towards the defense of Centurion Real Estate
    Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, in the Zucker Action.
  5. Carrier Plaintiffs’ payments towards the defense of Centurion Real Estate Partners,
    LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, included amounts Carrier Plaintiffs were not obligated to pay under
    their respective policies.
  6. Due to their payments, Carriers Plaintiffs are subrogated by law and principles of
    equity to the rights of Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC against Arch
    pursuant to their respective policies with respect to the Zucker Actions.
  7. Carrier Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of Arch’s actions and conduct.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
For Equitable Contribution - Beacon Action

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set

forth.

  1. Arch owed a coverage obligation to Insured Plaintiffs to defend and/or pay for the
    cost to defend the Insured Plaintiffs with respect to the Beacon Action.
  2. Arch has not paid any share of the cost to defend Insured Plaintiffs with respect to
    the Beacon Action.
  3. Carrier Plaintiffs have paid sums in excess of their equitable shares towards the
    defense of claims against Insured Plaintiffs in the Beacon Action.
  4. Carrier Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable contribution from Arch for all sums that
    Carrier Plaintiffs have paid in excess of their equitable shares towards the defense of claims against
    the Insured Plaintiffs in the Beacon Action.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Equitable Contribution - Zucker Actions

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set

forth.

  1. Arch owed a coverage obligation to Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and
    Mission Place, LLC, to defend and/or pay for the cost to defend the Zucker Actions.
  2. Arch has not paid any share of the cost to defend Centurion Real Estate Partners,
    LLC, and Mission Place, LLC in the Zucker Actions.
  3. Carrier Plaintiffs have paid sums in excess of their equitable shares towards the
    defense of Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC in the Zucker Actions.
  4. Carrier Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable contribution from Arch for all sums that
    Carrier Plaintiffs have paid in excess of their equitable shares towards the defense of Centurion Real
    Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, in the Zucker Actions.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following:

  1. A declaration that Arch had a duty to defend and/or pay for the cost to defend the
    Insured Plaintiffs in the Beacon Action;
  2. A declaration that Arch had a duty to defend and/or pay for the cost to defend the

Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC, and Mission Place, LLC, in the Zucker Actions

  1. A declaration that Arch had a duty to pay for the settlement of the claims against the
    Insured Plaintiffs in the Beacon Action;
  2. An award of any and all damages arising from Arch’s breach of the Arch Policies
    and its failure to deal in good faith;
  3. An award of damages, under equitable subrogation, for expenditures made by Carrier
    Plaintiffs towards the cost to defend and settle claims against the Insured Plaintiffs in the Beacon
    Action and Zucker Action;
  4. An award of damages, under equitable contribution, for expenditures made by
    Carrier Plaintiffs towards the cost to defend claims against the Insured Plaintiffs in the Beacon
    Action and Zucker Actions;
  1. An award of attorneys’ fees;
  2. An award of pre-judgment interest;
  3. An award of costs of suit; and
  4. For any other relief this Court deems proper.

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.