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

CERTAIN INTERESTED UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON v. BERT SMITH OLDSMOBILE, INC. 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: 
8:12-cv-00115 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Middle District of Florida
Date Filed: 
Jan 19 2012

"COUNT I - DECLARATORY RELIEF

19. Underwriters re-assert and re-allege allegations 1 through 19 above as if fully set forth herein.

20. An actual, present, and existing controversy exists between Underwriters and the Defendants with respect to the existence or exclusion of coverage under the Policy for BANKERS's claims against BERT SMITH, and the parties' respective rights and duties under the Policy, if any. As such, there is a bona fide, actual, and practical need of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant a judicial determination as to such things that include, but are not limited to, whether the Policy provides coverage for and/or excludes coverage for the claims by BANKERS, including, but not limited to those alleged by BANKERS in the Underlying Lawsuit.

21. Defendants have or will contend that the Policy affords coverage for the theft of the Porsche and that UNDERWRITERS are required to defend, indemnify, or pay proceeds or damages to or on behalf of BERT SMITH in relation to the claims asserted in the Underlying Lawsuit brought by BANKERS.

22. Underwriters contend that, among other things, the theft occurred whilst the Porsche was left unattended.

23. Underwriters contend that, among other things, the doors, trunk and windows of the Porsche were not secured and locked.

24. Underwriters contend that, among other things, the ignition, door and trunk keys were not placed in a secure place which is not accessible to the public.

25. Underwriters contend that, among other things, BERT SMITH made misrepresentations in its application for insurance which, pursuant to the terms of the Policy, make the Policy void.

26. Underwriters contend that the Policy is void and/or that the theft of the Porsche is excluded under the Policy under the above-quoted exclusion, and that Underwriters are not required to defend, indemnify, or pay proceeds or damages on behalf of or to any of the Defendants for the claims asserted in the Underlying Lawsuit, or any other lawsuits arising out of the theft of the Porsche.

27. Underwriters seek a judicial determination and declaration as to their rights, status, and other legal and equitable relations in, to, and with reference to the Policy.

28. In addition to the foregoing, Underwriters plead all other conditions, terms, warranties, limits, definitions, and exclusions of the Policy that may also be found to be applicable.

29. All conditions precedent to filing this action have been performed or have occurred.

WHEREFORE, Underwriters pray for a declaratory judgment against Defendants, including, but not limited to the following:

a. The Policy issued by Underwriters does not insure or cover any damages arising from the theft of the Porsche;
b. The Policy issued by Underwriters excludes, and therefore, does not apply to or afford coverage for the theft of the Porsche, including, but not limited to those damages asserted by BANKERS against BERT SMITH in the Underlying Lawsuit;
c. Underwriters have no duty to defend BERT SMITH against any claims asserted by BANKERS in the Underlying Lawsuit or arising out of the theft of the Porsche;
d. Underwriters have no duty to indemnify or pay any proceeds or damages to or on behalf of the Defendants, including BANKERS, BERT SMITH and ROMERO, as a result of the claims asserted in the Underlying Lawsuit or arising out of the theft of the Porsche;
e. Underwriters be granted such other and further declaratory relief as the Court may deem just and proper, together with attorneys fees, costs, and expenses incurred in bringing 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.