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

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS et al v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 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: 
1:14-cv-04717 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Aug 8 2014

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
Preliminary Statement
1. This is a declaratory judgment action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202,
whereby Plaintiffs seek a determination of the respective rights and obligations of the Plaintiffs
and of Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") and of the Insurer
Defendants (identified herein) in connection with a number of liability insurance policies issued
to Amtrak during a period beginning on or about June 1, 1972 and ending in 1986 (the
"Policies") with respect to claims that arise in substantial part in this federal judicial district, and
for other necessary and proper relief.
2. Plaintiffs are insurers who, during the period in question, did business in the
London Insurance Market and who issued or participated in - that is, subscribed to an agreed
percentage share of the risk of - one or more of the Policies. Plaintiffs are referred to herein
collectively as the "London Market Insurers" and are listed in the caption and in Attachment A
hereto, which forms a part of this Complaint and is incorporated in this Paragraph 2 by reference.
3. Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation, known as "Amtrak," is a
corporation created by federal statute and headquartered in Washington, D.C. Amtrak operates
passenger railroad service throughout the United States, and has substantial operations in the
State of New York and in this federal judicial district.
4. Defendants other than Amtrak are referred to herein as "Insurer Defendants" and
are insurance companies which insured Amtrak and are not named as Plaintiffs herein. Insurer
Defendants are listed in the caption and in Attachment B hereto, which forms a part of this
Complaint and is incorporated in this Paragraph 4 by reference. A significant number of the
Insurer Defendants are New York corporations and/or have their principal place of business in
New York.
5. The Policies which Plaintiffs issued or on which they participated are identified in
Attachment C hereto. Certain Insurer Defendants also issued or participated on those Policies.
Certain other Insurer Defendants issued or participated on the Policies identified in Attachment
D hereto. Some of the Policies on Attachment D are alleged by Amtrak and have not been shown
to exist. Attachment C and Attachment D each form a part of this Complaint and are
incorporated in Paragraph 5 by reference.
6. Each Plaintiff and each Insurer Defendant, by its issuance of or participation on
one or more of the Policies, severally and not jointly contracted with Amtrak to provide liability
insurance in accordance with the terms, conditions, limits and exclusions of such Policy or
Policies.
7. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that it is the subject of claims asserting that
Amtrak is responsible for costs of investigating and remediating environmental contamination at
numerous sites in different states (the "Environmental Claims") and has demanded
indemnification for such costs. According to Amtrak, a substantial portion of its liability for
addressing Environmental Claims arises from sites in New York and in this federal judicial
district. The Environmental Claims are comprised of claims that have been resolved; claims that
are currently pending; and claims that may be made against Amtrak in the future.
8. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that it is the subject of claims asserting personal
injury or bodily injury to individual natural persons caused by exposure to asbestos or by
exposure to other allegedly harmful substances or conditions (the "Asbestos Claims" and
"Health Hazard Claims," respectively), and has demanded payment of indemnity and defense
costs with respect to these claims. The Asbestos Claims and the Health Hazard Claims are
comprised of claims that have been resolved; claims that are currently pending; and claims that
may be filed against Amtrak in the future.
9. During certain periods over approximately the last decade, Plaintiffs have
engaged in various communications with Amtrak regarding coverage alleged by Amtrak for the
Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and the Health Hazard Claims.
10. These discussions have not resulted in any resolution of issues between Amtrak
and the Plaintiffs.
11. A standstill agreement was in place for many years between the Plaintiffs and
Amtrak. Amtrak recently notified Plaintiffs that it was terminating the standstill agreement. At
the time of the filing of this Complaint, the standstill had expired.
12. There is an actual and judiciable controversy between the Plaintiffs and Amtrak
regarding the alleged present obligation of the Plaintiffs to make payments to Amtrak pursuant to
the Policies and regarding the application of the Policies to anticipated future obligations and
expenditures of Amtrak with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and the
Health Hazard Claims.
13. Amtrak has reported to Plaintiffs that the amounts it has paid and expects to pay
are no less than tens of millions of dollars in total with respect to the claims at issue. In providing
such information about the magnitude of the losses sustained and expected losses, Amtrak has
requested that Plaintiffs afford it confidential treatment so far as possible. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
do not include detailed cost or projected cost figures in this Complaint in order to permit Amtrak
an opportunity to seek protection for that information if it so chooses.
14. Resolution of the issues between Amtrak and the Plaintiffs will require the Court
to apply the policy wordings in light of the facts of the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos
Claims, and the Health Hazard Claims.
15. The declarations and rulings that the Plaintiffs seek in this case will affect the
allocation of liability, if any, among many different insurance policies and will affect the rights
and obligations, if any, among the various insurers - including Plaintiffs and Insurer Defendants
- that have issued or participated on insurance policies under which Amtrak has asserted a right
to coverage.
16. Plaintiffs ask the Court to determine how much, if anything, each of them (and/or
the Insurer Defendants) may presently owe to Amtrak; and how to interpret their policies going
forward with respect to currently pending and expected future claims against Amtrak.
17. Plaintiffs aver and seek a declaration that: (i) they have no current obligation to
make any payment to Amtrak and that in the absence of satisfaction of certain predicates to
coverage, including certain conditions precedent, and due to the application of certain
exclusions, there is no coverage owing under any of the Policies; and (ii) they have no current
obligation to make payments which in total amount to tens of millions of dollars and will have
no future obligations to pay similar amounts. An actual and justiciable controversy thus exists
between and among the parties.
The Parties
18. Plaintiffs "London Market Insurers" are comprised of those Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd's, London, and those Certain London Market Companies that subscribed to the Policies
for their respective several shares of the risks insured by the insurance policies listed in
Attachment C to this Complaint.
19. Plaintiffs Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London are natural persons who are or
were members of underwriting syndicates which at the time the Policies were issued did conduct
business at the insurance marketplace known as Lloyd's, London, which is chartered by an act of
Parliament. Only such persons who, each for his own part and not for another, subscribed
through his membership in a syndicate to one or more of the policies of insurance listed in
Attachment C hereto are included in the term "Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London" as used
herein. The syndicates to which such persons belonged are identified in Attachment A hereto.
20. Plaintiffs Certain London Market Companies are comprised of certain insurance
companies, each of which is organized under the laws of foreign states and has its principal place
of business outside the United States. Each such company, as listed in Attachment A hereto,
subscribed for its own part and not for any other to one or more of the policies of insurance listed
in Attachment C hereto.
21. Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation, known as "Amtrak," is a
corporation organized pursuant to federal statute with its principal place of business in the
District of Columbia. The United States owns more than one-half of the capital stock of Amtrak.
22. Defendant The Dominion Insurance Company Limited is a corporation organized
under the laws of England and Wales with its principal place of business in England. The
Dominion Insurance Company Limited severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on
Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that The Dominion Insurance
Company Limited may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated
on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard
Claims.
23. Defendant Stronghold Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of England and Wales with its principal place of business in England. Stronghold Insurance
Company severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information
and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Stronghold may have obligations under one or more policies
it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims,
and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
24. Defendant Allianz Insurance Company, now known as Allianz Global Risks US
Insurance, is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its principal place of
business in Illinois. On information and belief, Allianz Insurance Company issued or
participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief,
Amtrak has asserted that Allianz Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more
policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos
Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
25. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws
of Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. On information and belief, Allstate
Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D.
On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Allstate Insurance Company may have
obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the
Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
26. Defendant American Home Assurance Company is a corporation organized under
the laws of New York with its principal place of business in New York. On information and
belief, American Home Assurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the
policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that American
Home Assurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or
participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health
Hazard Claims.
27. Defendant American Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of Ohio with its principal place of business in California. On information and belief,
American Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on
Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that American Insurance
Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with
respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
28. Defendant American Reinsurance Company, now known as Munich Re Group
Incorporated, is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of
business in New Jersey. On information and belief, American Reinsurance Company issued or
participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief,
Amtrak has asserted that American Reinsurance Company may have obligations under one or
more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the
Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
29. Defendant Argonaut Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Texas. On information and belief, Argonaut
Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D.
On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Argonaut Insurance Company may have
obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the
Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
30. Defendant ASSUBEL Accidents et Dommages SA is a corporation organized
under the laws of Belgium with its principal place of business in Belgium. ASSUBEL Accidents
et Dommages SA severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On
information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that ASSUBEL Accidents et Dommages SA may
have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the
Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
31. On information and belief, ASTRA S.A., a Romania corporation, is the successor
to ADAS State Insurance Institute. On information and belief, ADAS State Insurance Institute
participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief,
Amtrak has asserted that ADAS State Insurance Institute may have obligations under one or
more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the
Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
32. Defendant Atlantica Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of Sweden with its principal place of business in Sweden. Atlantica Insurance Company
severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief,
Amtrak has asserted that Atlantica Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more
policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos
Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
33. Upon information and belief Defendant Banco De Seguros Del Estado is a
corporation organized under the laws of Uruguay with its principal place of business in Uruguay.
Banco De Seguros Del Estado severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment
C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Banco De Seguros Del Estado may have
obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the
Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
34. On information and belief Defendant Bandeirante has or had a place of business
in England. Bandeirante severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C.
On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Bandeirante may have obligations under one
or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the
Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
35. Defendant Bellefonte Insurance Company (US) is a corporation organized under
the laws of Ohio with its principal place of business in Ohio. Bellefonte Insurance Company
(US) severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and
belief, Amtrak has asserted that Bellefonte Insurance Company (US) may have obligations under
one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims,
the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
36. Defendant Bison Insurance Company Limited is a corporation organized under
the laws of South Carolina with its principal place of business in South Carolina. Bison
Insurance Company Limited severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment
C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Bison Insurance Company Limited may
have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the
Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
37. Defendant Brittany Insurance Company Limited is a corporation organized under
the laws of Bermuda with its principal place of business in Bermuda. Brittany Insurance
Company Limited severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On
information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Brittany Insurance Company Limited may have
obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the
Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
38. Defendant California Union Insurance Company is a corporation organized under
the laws of California with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. On information and
belief, California Union Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies
listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that California Union
Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated
on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard
Claims.
39. Defendant CIGNA is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with
its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. On information and belief, CIGNA issued or
participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief,
Amtrak has asserted that CIGNA may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued
or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the
Health Hazard Claims.
40. On information and belief Defendant Compagnie Beige D'Assurances Credit S.A.
is a corporation organized under the laws of Belgium with its principal place of business in
Belgium. Compagnie Beige D'Assurances Credit S.A. severally subscribed to one or more
policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Compagnie
Beige D'Assurances Credit S.A. may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or
participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health
Hazard Claims.
41. On information and belief Defendant Companhia De Seguros Imperio is a
corporation organized under the laws of Portugal with its principal place of business in Portugal.
Companhia De Seguros Imperio severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on
Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Companhia De Seguros
Imperio may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with
respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
42. Defendant Compania de Seguros La Republica S.A. is a corporation organized
under the laws of Chile with its principal place of business in England. On information and
belief, Compania de Seguros La Republica S.A. issued or participated on one or more of the
policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Compania
de Seguros La Republica S.A. may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or
participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health
Hazard Claims.
43. Defendant Continental Insurance Company as successor in interest to certain
policies issued by Harbor Insurance Company and Pacific Insurance Company is a corporation
organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Illinois. Harbor
Insurance Company and Pacific Insurance Company each severally subscribed to one or more of
the policies listed in Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that
Continental Insurance Company, as successor in interest to certain policies issued by Harbor
Insurance Company and Pacific Insurance Company, may have obligations under one or more
policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos
Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
44. Upon information and belief Defendant Eurinco Allgemeine Versicherungs
Aktiengesellschaft is a corporation organized under the laws of Germany with its principal place
of business in Germany. Eurinco Allgemeine Versicherungs Aktiengesellschaft severally
subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak
has asserted that Eurinco Allgemeine Versicherungs Aktiengesellschaft may have obligations
under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental
Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
45. Defendant Evanston Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of New York with its principal place of business in Illinois. On information and belief,
Evanston Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on
Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Evanston Insurance
Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with
respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
46. Defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company is a corporation organized under
the laws of California with its principal place of business in California. On information and
belief, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies
listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated
on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard
Claims.
47. Defendant First State Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of Connecticut with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. On information and
belief, First State Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed
on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that First State Insurance
Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with
respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
48. On information and belief Defendant GESB-Grupo Empresas Seguradoras is a
corporation organized under the laws of Brazil with its principal place of business in Brazil.
GESB-Grupo Empresas Seguradoras severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on
Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that GESB-Grupo Empresas
Seguradoras may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on
with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard
Claims.
49. Defendant Granite State Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in New York. On information and
belief, Granite State Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies
listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Granite State
Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated
on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard
Claims.
50. Defendant The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company is a corporation
organized under the laws of Connecticut with its principal place of business in Connecticut. On
information and belief, The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company issued or participated on
one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has
asserted that The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company may have obligations under one or
more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the
Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
51. Defendant Hassneh Insurance Company of Israel Limited is a corporation
organized under the laws of Israel with its principal place of business in Israel. Hassneh
Insurance Company of Israel Limited severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on
Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Hassneh Insurance
Company of Israel Limited may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or
participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health
Hazard Claims.
52. On information and belief Defendant Instituto Nacionali de Reaseguros is a
corporation organized under the laws of Argentina with its principal place of business in
Argentina. Instituto Nacionali de Reaseguros severally subscribed to one or more policies listed
on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Instituto Nacionali de
Reaseguros may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with
respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
53. Defendant Insurance Company of North America is a corporation organized under
the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. On information
and belief, Insurance Company of North America issued or participated on one or more of the
policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Insurance
Company of North America may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or
participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health
Hazard Claims.
54. Defendant Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania is a corporation
organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in New York. On
information and belief, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania issued or participated on
one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has
asserted that Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania may have obligations under one or
more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the
Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
55. Defendant Interstate Reinsurance Corporation is a corporation organized under
the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. On information and belief,
Interstate Reinsurance Corporation issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on
Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Interstate Reinsurance
Corporation may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on
with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard
Claims.
56. Defendant International Surplus Lines Insurance Company is a corporation
organized under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. On
information and belief, International Surplus Lines Insurance Company issued or participated on
one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has
asserted that International Surplus Lines Insurance Company may have obligations under one or
more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the
Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
57. Defendant Korean Reinsurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of Korea with its principal place of business in Korea. Korean Reinsurance Company
severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief,
Amtrak has asserted that Korean Reinsurance Company may have obligations under one or more
policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos
Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
58. Defendant Landmark Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of California with its principal place of business in New York. On information and belief,
Landmark Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on
Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Landmark Insurance
Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with
respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
59. Defendant Lexington Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in New York. On information and belief,
Lexington Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on
Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Lexington Insurance
Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with
respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
60. Defendant National Mutual Insurance Company, now known as Celina Insurance
Group, is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio with its principal place of business in
Ohio. On information and belief, National Mutual Insurance Company issued or participated on
one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has
asserted that National Mutual Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more
policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos
Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
61. Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is
a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in
New York. On information and belief, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On
information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or
participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health
Hazard Claims.
62. Defendant Northbrook Insurance Company, now known as Allstate Northbrook
Indemnity Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois with its principal place
of business in Illinois. On information and belief, Northbrook Insurance Company issued or
participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief,
Amtrak has asserted that Northbrook Insurance Company may have obligations under one or
more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the
Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
63. Defendant The People's Insurance Company of China is a corporation organized
under the laws of China with its principal place of business in China. The People's Insurance
Company of China severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On
information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that The People's Insurance Company of China may
have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the
Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
64. Defendant Railroad Association Insurance Limited is a corporation organized
under the laws of Bermuda with its principal place of business in Bermuda. On information and
belief, Railroad Association Insurance Limited issued or participated on one or more of the
policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Railroad
Association Insurance Limited may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or
participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health
Hazard Claims.
65. On information and belief Defendant Reafianzadora y Reaseguradora de America
has or had a place of business in England. Reafianzadora y Reaseguradora de America severally
subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak
has asserted that Reafianzadora y Reaseguradora de America may have obligations under one or
more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the
Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
66. On information and belief Defendant Roberto Fevre has or had a place of business
in England. Roberto Fevre severally subscribed to one or more policies listed on Attachment C.
On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Roberto Fevre may have obligations under
one or more policies it has issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims,
the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
67. Defendant Shand Morahan & Co., now known as Markel International Insurance
Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of
business in Illinois. On information and belief, Shand Morahan & Co. issued or participated on
one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has
asserted that Shand Morahan & Co. may have obligations under one or more policies it has
issued or participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or
the Health Hazard Claims.
68. On information and belief Defendant Vera Cruz Insurance Company has or had a
place of business in England. Vera Cruz Insurance Company severally subscribed to one or
more policies listed on Attachment C. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Vera
Cruz Insurance Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or
participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health
Hazard Claims.
69. Defendant Wausau International Underwriters is a corporation organized under
the laws of Wisconsin with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. On information and
belief, Wausau International Underwriters issued or participated on one or more of the policies
listed on Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Wausau
International Underwriters may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or
participated on with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health
Hazard Claims.
70. Defendant Yosemite Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of Indiana with its principal place of business in Indiana. On information and belief,
Yosemite Insurance Company issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on
Attachment D. On information and belief, Amtrak has asserted that Yosemite Insurance
Company may have obligations under one or more policies it has issued or participated on with
respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
71. The Defendants identified in Paragraphs 22 through 70 above are herein
collectively referred to as the "Insurer Defendants."
72. In addition to the Insurer Defendants, on information and belief Glacier General
Assurance Company, Integrity Insurance Company, Midland Insurance Company, Mutual Fire,
Marine and Inland Insurance Company, Northeastern Fire Insurance Company, Reliance
Insurance Company, Signal Insurance Company, and Transportation Mutual Insurance Company
also issued or participated on one or more of the policies listed on Attachment D. However, on
information and belief, these insurers, and other insurers who issued or participated on one or
more policies listed on Attachment C or Attachment D, currently are or have been the subject of
insolvency or liquidation proceedings. These insurers are not named as defendants to this action.
On information and belief, none of the Insurer Defendants identified herein currently is or has
been the subject of insolvency or liquidation proceedings. Plaintiffs do not intend to name as a
defendant any insurance company that is or has been the subject of insolvency or liquidation
proceedings.
73. Defendants Does 1 through 20 are additional insurers, not yet identified, which
issued or participated on insurance policies issued to Amtrak and as to which Amtrak may have
asserted that they may have obligations with respect to the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos
Claims, and/or the Health Hazard Claims.
74. Defendants Does 21 through 40 are entities named as additional insureds (or
additional assureds) under one or more of the policies of insurance identified in Attachment C or
Attachment D, not yet identified, and may have asserted or may assert rights to insurance
coverage under one or more of said policies.
Jurisdiction and Venue
75. This is a civil action asserting a claim against a corporation that was incorporated
pursuant to an Act of Congress, and as to which the United States owns more than one-half of
the capital stock. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, as to the parties' rights and obligations with respect to certain claims
under the Policies at issue.
76. This Court thus has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1349.
77. Venue in this federal judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2)
because, as pleaded in detail in the paragraphs that follow, a substantial portion of the events,
acts, or omissions giving rise to this action herein took place at Amtrak facilities located in this
federal judicial district. Alternatively, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) or (b)(3).
Facts
78. Plaintiffs allege facts in the following areas: the insurance policies at issue; the
Environmental Claims; the Asbestos Claims; the Health Hazard Claims; and the presentation to
Plaintiffs of claims prior to the filing of this action.
Insurance Policies
79. The Policies are listed in Attachment C and in Attachment D hereto.
Presentation to Plaintiffs of Claims
80. By letters dated June 28, 2006, and July 11, 2006, Amtrak for the first time sought
indemnification from Plaintiffs for alleged losses and expenses purportedly associated with the
Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, and Health Hazard Claims.
81. In response to Amtrak's 2006 letters, and at all times since, Plaintiffs have
reserved their rights to deny coverage and have requested information upon which to evaluate the
identified claims.
82. Amtrak has ignored Plaintiffs' request for additional information about certain of
these claims, or has provided insufficient information to permit Plaintiffs to make coverage
determinations.
83. Amtrak has provided information to Plaintiffs indicating that it has entered
settlement agreements, consent orders, and/or otherwise committed to make remedial efforts and
voluntary payments with respect to the Environmental Claims without notice to Plaintiffs and
without Plaintiffs' participation or consent.
84. Amtrak asserts that it has incurred or expects to incur losses of many tens of
millions of dollars associated with the Environmental Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and the
Health Hazard Claims. The limited information provided by Amtrak relating to the claims is
summarized below.
Environmental Claims
85. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that it has incurred significant liabilities for
environmental response costs, or faces future liabilities for such costs, associated with
investigation and remediation efforts at numerous sites located throughout the United States,
which include the following: Long Island City Vent Project, Newtown Creek Superfund Site,
Penn Station, Rennselaer Facilities, and Sunnyside Yard in New York; Operating Industries and
Redondo Junction Maintenance Facility in California; 23 Barry Place, New Haven (Cedar Hill
Maintenance of Way (MOW) Base, New Haven Cogen Plant, New Haven General Maintenance
Facility, New Haven Motor Storage and West Classification Yard in Connecticut; Delaware
River Basin, Finger/Krieger, Wilmington Shop/Wilmington Refueling Facility, Wilmington
West Yard in Delaware; Ivy City Yard in Washington, DC; Sanford Auto-Train Facility in
Florida; Lumber Street Yard and Springfield Station Substations in Illinois; Beech Grove in
Iowa; Repair Shop in Louisiana; Boston Engine Terminal, Readville Five Yard and South
Hampton Yard in Massachusetts; Amtrak Adams MW Base, Amtrak Hunter Fuel Facility,
Amtrak Property I, Amtrak Property II, Amtrak Rail Yard (Durant Yard), Amtrak Substation #40
Waverly, Lightman Drum, Metro Park, Milham Yard/WR Grace, National Railroad Rahway
Substation #39 and Trenton Track #5 in New Jersey; and 30th Street Penn Station/Penn Coach
Yard (Race Street), Berks Associates Site/Douglassville Disposal, Downington MOW Base,
Paoli Rail Yard, Penn Coach Yard and Tank Car Site in Pennsylvania. There may be additional
sites unknown to Plaintiffs at which Amtrak may have or may in the future incur liability.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration with respect to any such sites whose existence becomes known to
them during the pendency of this litigation.
86. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that a substantial portion of its asserted
environmental exposure is associated with three sites, two of which are located in New York.
Based on information Amtrak has provided, the Sunnyside Yard site located in Queens, New
York, which is within this federal judicial district, presents the single greatest environmental
liability to Amtrak. Another significant exposure is the Pennsylvania Station site located in
Manhattan.
87. Based on information Amtrak has provided to Plaintiffs in connection with the
Environmental Claims, Amtrak has incurred, or expects to incur, greater liability for
environmental response costs in the State of New York than in any other jurisdiction in the
country.
88. On August 22, 2012, Amtrak provided Plaintiffs with an "Update on
Environmental Claims," including a table in which Amtrak purported to identify its past costs at
each site as of that date. Amtrak informed Plaintiffs that approximately 44 percent of such costs
had been incurred at the Sunnyside Yard, Penn Station, and Long Island City Vent Project sites
in New York. Thus, according to Amtrak's most recent update, more costs have been incurred
by Amtrak at sites in New York than in any other jurisdiction - more than twice as much as the
next closest jurisdiction.
89. The three sites presenting the largest environmental exposure to Amtrak are
described in the paragraphs that follow.
Sunnyside Yard, Queens, New York
90. The Sunnyside Yard Site is a 100-acre railroad maintenance and storage facility
located in Queens, New York.
91. According to information provided by Amtrak, the Sunnyside Yard Site has
widespread contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals.
92. Amtrak asserts that it is currently involved in an extensive, multi-year effort to
remove PCB contamination at the Sunnyside Yard Site.
93. The Sunnyside Yard Site was for many decades owned by Penn Central
Transportation Company (Penn Central), now known as American Premier Underwriters
("APU"). Publicly available information indicates that on April 1, 1976 the Sunnyside Yard Site
was acquired by the Consolidated Rail Corporation, which conveyed it to Amtrak on the same
day.
94. Amtrak asserts that it has been investigating possible pollution at the Sunnyside
Yard Site since at least the mid-1980s.
95. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NY-DEC")
has designated the Sunnyside Yard Site a Class 2 Inactive Hazardous Waste Site as a result of
PCBs and other hazardous substance contamination.
96. The Sunnyside Yard Site was divided into six operable units and the NY-DEC has
issued a Record of Decision with respect to each operable unit.
97. Amtrak asserts that it has implemented remediation efforts pursuant to a 1989
Order on Consent and/or the NY-DEC's Record of Decision at one or more of the operable units,
including, according to Amtrak, extensive cleanup efforts in 1998 to remove PCB contaminated
sediment.
98. At no time has Amtrak given Plaintiffs an opportunity to participate in
negotiations with NY-DEC regarding investigation or remediation efforts at the Sunnyside Yard
Site. Plaintiffs are aware of no suits filed by NY-DEC against Amtrak seeking to recover
amounts relating to contamination at the Sunnyside Yard Site.
99. On or about September 26, 2007, Amtrak entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with APU (successor to Penn Central) that purports to resolve and
settle Amtrak's and APU's respective responsibilities for costs associated with investigation and
remediation efforts at the Sunnyside Yard Site. At no time has Amtrak given Plaintiffs an
opportunity to participate in any settlement discussions or negotiations with APU regarding the
Sunnyside Yard Site.
100. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that its past and projected future costs relating to
environmental investigation and remediation at its Sunnyside Yard Site total many millions of
dollars as of September 30, 2011.
Penn Station, Manhattan, NY
101. The Pennsylvania Station (Penn Station) Site is located in New York City in the
borough of Manhattan.
102. Amtrak asserts that it is involved in a multi-year project to dispose of PCB
contaminated soil during track work at the Penn Station Site.
103. Plaintiffs are aware of no suits that have been filed against Amtrak relating to
contamination at the Penn Station Site.
104. Amtrak has informed the Plaintiffs that its past and projected future costs relating
to environmental investigation and remediation at its Penn Station Site total many millions of
dollars as of September 30, 2011.
Wilmington Shops, Wilmington DE
105. The Wilmington Shops Site consists of a former fueling facility and a
maintenance facility located in Wilmington, Delaware that encompasses approximately 85 acres.
106. Amtrak has conducted several environmental investigations and remedial
activities at the Wilmington Shops Site.
107. The Wilmington Shops Site, originally constructed in 1903, primarily was used
for the maintenance, fueling and servicing of locomotives and passenger train cars first with coal
later with diesel fuel, lubricating oil, and sand. In 1995, fueling operations were moved from the
former fueling facility to the maintenance facility and the former fueling facility is now used as
storage for passenger railcars and as a staging location site for maintenance-of-way and other
equipment.
108. The Wilmington Shops Site was formerly owned by Penn Central until it was
purchased by Amtrak in April 1976.
109. No later than the early 1980s, Amtrak became aware of PCB contamination at the
Wilmington Shops Site. Amtrak has asserted that in the mid-1980s it undertook major
assessments and remediation efforts to remove PCB contaminated soil.
110. The Wilmington Shops Site was divided into two operable units - one designed to
address contamination concerns at the former fueling facility and the other to address
contamination concerns at the maintenance facility.
111. According to information Amtrak has provided to Plaintiffs, it has been involved
in preparing and implementing remediation plans for the Wilmington Shops Site and has signed
a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control ("DNREC") to remediate PCB and petroleum soil contamination at the
Wilmington maintenance facility and to initiate erosion control measures.
112. At no time has Amtrak given Plaintiffs an opportunity to participate in any
negotiations with DNREC regarding investigation or remediation efforts at the Wilmington
Shops Site.
113. Plaintiffs are aware of no suits filed by DNREC against Amtrak seeking to
recover amounts relating to contamination at the Wilmington Shops Site.
114. Amtrak has informed the Plaintiffs that its past and projected future costs relating
to environmental investigation and remediation at its Wilmington Shops Site total many millions
of dollars as of September 30, 2011.
Asbestos Claims and Health Hazard Claims
115. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that, since 1972, it has been named as a defendant
in lawsuits seeking damages for bodily injury from alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestoscontaining
products such as insulation for boilers, steam generator, steam pipes, and electrical
systems; friction product in machinery and brakes; gaskets, rope; packing materials; and
firewalls.
116. Based on publicly available information, hundreds of these claims have been filed
in New York courts and it appears that a substantial portion of Amtrak's liability for the
Asbestos Claims arises in New York.
117. In connection with Asbestos Claims, Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that it has
made indemnity payments and defense payments which combined are in the many millions of
dollars, and that it expects to make additional indemnity and defense payments in the future.
118. Amtrak is a defendant in various categories of Health Hazard Claims.
119. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that, beginning in the 1970s, it has been named as
a defendant in lawsuits seeking damages for bodily injury allegedly from the cumulative effect of
repetitive and continuous physical exertion ("repetitive stress injury" or "RSI" claims).
120. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that, in connection with RSI claims, it has made
indemnity payments and defense payments which combined are in the many millions of dollars,
and that it expects to make additional indemnity and defense payments in the future.
121. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that beginning in 1972, it has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits seeking damages for hearing loss from alleged chronic exposure to loud
noise in the workplace ("hearing loss" claims).
122. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that in connection with hearing loss claims it has
made indemnity payments and defense payments which combined are in the many millions of
dollars, and that it expects to make additional indemnity and defense payments in the future.
123. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that beginning in 1988 it has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits seeking damages for bodily injury from alleged exposure to hazardous or
deleterious substances in the workplace such as solvents, fuels and other chemicals, and airborne
contaminants such as diesel fumes ("deleterious substance" claims).
124. Amtrak has informed Plaintiffs that, in connection with deleterious substance
claims, it has made indemnity payments and defense payments which combined are in the
millions of dollars, and that it expects to make additional indemnity and defense payments in the
future.
Causes of Action
First Cause of Action:
For a Declaratory Judgment as to Their Obligations Under the Policies
125. Plaintiffs hereby repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 124 as if set forth fully herein.
126. The Policies identified in Attachment C and in Attachment D contain various
terms, conditions, limitations, and definitions which Amtrak (or any other assured under the
Policies) must show are satisfied in order for there to be insurance coverage for losses and
expenses Amtrak (or any other assured under the Policies) has assertedly incurred or will in the
future incur in connection with the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health Hazard
Claims.
127. Further, the Policies contain exclusions which preclude coverage in certain
circumstances.
128. None of the Policies requires the Plaintiffs to indemnify or otherwise provide
coverage to Amtrak or any other assured under the policies with respect to the Environmental
Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health Hazard Claims for one or more the reasons set forth in
Paragraph 129 below, and for other reasons based on the terms, conditions, definitions,
limitations, and exclusions of the Policies.
129. The purpose of this Complaint is to seek a declaration of the Plaintiffs' rights and
obligations, if any, under the Policies with respect to all insurance coverage and other issues
relating to the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, and Health Hazard Claims. Plaintiffs are
entitled to a declaratory judgment with respect to the obligation, if any, of each Policy to respond
to each environmental claim in accordance with the terms, conditions, limits, and exclusions of
each policy. The following insurance coverage issues are among those with respect to which
Plaintiffs seek a declaration. Omission of an issue from the following list is not a waiver of
Plaintiffs' right to seek a declaration with respect to such issue, nor is it intended to remove from
the scope of this action any issue the determination of which is necessary for a comprehensive
resolution of the controversy among the parties. In all instances below, the precise wording of
each policy is the controlling contractual language and is not replaced or modified by any
paraphrase or summary of the coverage issue as follows:
a. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtrak's burden to show as a predicate
to any insurance coverage obligation that Amtrak's liability is a result of bodily injury or
property damage arising out of an occurrence caused by or growing out of Amtrak's
operations, or any services or operations incidental thereto. Plaintiffs seek a declaration
that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden.
b. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtrak's burden to show as a predicate
to any insurance coverage obligation that Amtrak is liable for and has actually paid the
amount claimed and has deducted all recoveries, salvages, and collectible claims from
other insurers. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this
burden.
c. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtrak's burden to show as a predicate
to any coverage obligation that the applicable self-insured retention ("SIR") and any and
all underlying policies have been properly exhausted. Amtrak's showing of such
exhaustion must include, without limitation, a determination of the number of
occurrences giving rise to the amount claimed, the amounts actually paid, and a
determination that each such amount was paid as damages (or, under certain Policies, as
compensation) for a loss covered by the Policy terms. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that
Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden.
d. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtrak's burden to show as a predicate
to any coverage obligation that there was an "occurrence," within the meaning of the
Policies, giving rise to bodily injury or property damage during the term of the policy.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden.
e. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtrak's burden to show as a predicate
to coverage that the "occurrence" unintentionally and unexpectedly resulted in bodily
injury or property damage during the term of the policy. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that
Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden.
f With respect to any amount claimed on a policy that defines an "occurrence" as
"one or more accident or disasters and/or series of accidents or disasters arising out of or
resulting from one event," it is Amtrak's burden to show as a predicate to insurance
coverage that the bodily injury or property damage was the result of an accident or
disaster or series of accidents or disasters, and not from ordinary and routine business
operations. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this
burden.
g. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtrak's burden to show as a predicate
to insurance coverage that the bodily injury or property damage resulted from a fortuity.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden.
h. With respect to any amount claimed, it is Amtrak's burden to show as a predicate
to insurance coverage that the bodily injury or property damage was not a known loss or
a loss in progress at the time of the inception of the Policy in question. Plaintiffs seek a
declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden.
i. With respect to any amount claimed under certain policies, it is Amtrak's burden
to show as a predicate to insurance coverage that Amtrak has paid that amount "as
compensation" for bodily injury or property damage. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that
Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden.
j . With respect to any amount claimed under certain policies, it is Amtrak's burden
to show as a predicate to insurance coverage that Amtrak has paid that amount "as
damages" for bodily injury or property damage. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak
will not be able to satisfy this burden.
k. With respect to any amount claimed with respect to any Environmental Claim, it
is Amtrak's burden to show as a predicate to insurance coverage that Amtrak has paid
that amount for "property damage" as defined by the insurance policies. Plaintiffs seek a
declaration that Amtrak will not be able to satisfy this burden.
1. The Policies require, as predicate to insurance coverage, that Amtrak cooperate
with Plaintiffs in their investigation, evaluation and handling of claims, and not
voluntarily undertake obligations or enter into settlements without the Plaintiffs' consent.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak has not complied with this condition precedent.
m. The Policies contain a requirement, as a condition precedent to insurance
coverage, that notice of claims or circumstances likely to give rise to claims that may be
covered under the Policies must be provided as soon as practical (or practicable) or, in
certain circumstances, immediately. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amtrak has not
complied with this condition precedent.
n. With respect to any amount claimed for damage to or destruction of physical
property, it is Amtrak's burden under certain Policies to show as a predicate to insurance
coverage that the damage or destruction does not relate to Amtrak's own property or
property in its care, custody or control or as to which Amtrak is in any way exercising
physical control. Under certain other Policies, this limitation on coverage appears as an
exclusion. Under all Policies, any amount claimed as damage to or destruction of
Amtrak's own property or property in its care, custody or control, or property as to which
Amtrak is in any way exercising physical control, is not covered under the Policies.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that this limitation on coverage applies to some or all of the
amounts alleged to be owing with respect to the Environmental Claims,
o. Certain of the Policies contain an exclusion for coverage for bodily injury or
property damage caused directly or indirectly by seepage, pollution or contamination, or
for the cleanup or removal of seeping, polluting, or contaminating substances, which, in
the circumstances of each of the Environmental Claims and certain of the Asbestos
Claims and Health Hazard Claims asserted by Amtrak, precludes any obligation of the
Plaintiffs to provide insurance coverage under such Policies for such claims.
p. Certain of the Policies contain an exclusion for bodily injury caused directly or
indirectly by asbestos, which precludes insurance coverage under such Policies for
asbestos bodily injury claims.
q. The Policies are excess policies which do not provide coverage for any losses
within Amtrak's "per occurrence" self-insured retentions or within the limits of any
underlying insurance policies. A judicial determination on the number of occurrences
issues will affect whether and if so to what extent any Policies provide coverage for any
of Amtrak's Claims. With respect to the Asbestos Claims and the Health Hazard Claims,
the parties at all times understood and Amtrak has acknowledged and agreed that the
claim of each employee constitutes a separate occurrence.
r. The Policies issued by Plaintiffs are excess policies, which provide coverage, if
any, only in excess of any other insurance that may pertain to a particular loss, unless
such other insurance is specifically identified as excess to the policies in question.
s. Any amounts constituting punitive or exemplary damages, or fines or penalties
are not covered under the Policies.
t. With respect to any amount claimed, the Policies do not provide insurance
coverage for liabilities assumed by Amtrak under certain indemnification and hold
harmless agreements between Amtrak and certain railroad companies.
u. With respect to any amount claimed, the Policies do not provide coverage for
amounts incurred by Amtrak due to a failure on its part to mitigate or avoid a loss, or
arising out of payment of unreasonable or unnecessary amounts to claimants or other
entities.
v. With respect to any amount claimed, to the extent it is determined by the Court
that any Claim may give rise to an obligation under one or more Policies, the amount of
any such obligation under any policy shall be determined by an appropriate allocation as
among Amtrak and its insurers pursuant to an appropriate allocation methodology applied
by the Court.
w. With respect to any amount claimed, the Policies do not afford coverage unless
the claimed loss falls with the scope of coverage in accordance with all the terms,
conditions, limitations, exclusions, attachment points and limits of liability of the
Policies. The Policies have other terms, conditions, exclusions, limitations and
endorsements which are not specifically identified herein, but as to which the Plaintiffs
seek a declaration, the objective of this Complaint being as complete and comprehensive
a resolution as possible of the actual and justiciable controversy that exists between
Amtrak and the Plaintiffs and other insurers of Amtrak with respect to the Environmental
Claims, the Asbestos Claims, and the Health Hazard Claims.
130. An actual and presently justiciable controversy exists between and among the
Plaintiffs, Defendant Amtrak, and the Insurer Defendants, with respect to the proper construction
of the liability policies issued to Amtrak and Plaintiffs' and Defendants' rights and obligations
under the various policies with respect to the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, and
Health Hazard Claims. The controversy is of sufficient immediacy and magnitude to justify the
issuance of a declaratory judgment.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief as follows, that the Court:
1. Declare that Plaintiffs have no obligation to indemnify or provide other coverage
to Amtrak or any other assured under the Policies identified on Attachment C with respect to the
Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health Hazard Claims;
2. Declare that neither Amtrak nor any other assured under the policies identified on
Attachment C has exhausted the applicable self-insured retentions with respect to any of the
Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health Hazard Claims;
3. Declare that coverage under the policies identified on Attachment C, to the extent
any is determined to exist for any of the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, or Health
Hazard Claims, is in accordance with the terms, conditions, and limitations of the policies,
including that each claimant's bodily injury claim constitutes a separate occurrence under the
policies;
4. Declare that to the extent any Plaintiff is determined to have an obligation to
indemnify amounts assertedly incurred with respect to the Environmental Claims, Asbestos
Claims, or Health Hazard Claims, such obligation must be allocated on a pro rata basis across all
triggered periods to the extent any such claim triggers more than one policy period, and that any
obligation of any such Plaintiff is limited by that pro rata allocation;
5. Enter a declaration as to any other rights and obligations of the parties as may be
required to effect a comprehensive resolution of the controversy between and among the parties
with respect to the Environmental Claims, Asbestos Claims, and Health Hazard Claims; and
6. Grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and 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.