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

THE CITY OF NEW YORK v. GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY 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: 
1:11-cv-05949 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
The City of New York
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Sep 24 2011

"First Cause of Action

(Declaration of Duty to Defend and Indemnify Against Great Northern)

52. The city repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.

53. Great Northern is obligated to defend and indemnify the City in the Locus Action.

54. Great Northern failed to respond to the City's original, timely tender of the Locus Action.

55. Great Northern failed to respond to the City's demand for a defense in the Locus Action.

56. Great Northern failed to respond to the City's demand for defense in the Locus Action on or about April 8, 2011.

57. Great Northern failure to accept the defense the City with respect to the Locus Action violates the Great Northern Policy and the law.

58. There is therefore an actual controversy of a justifiable nature between the City and Great Northern as to whether Great Northern is obligated to defend and indemnity the  City in the Locus Action under the terms of the Great Northern Policy.  A judicial declaration that Great Norther is obligated to defend and indemnity the City is necessary and appropriate at this time because, as a result of Great Northern's failure to accept the City's tender of defense the City has been forced to incur costs and expenses providing its own defense and will be liable for any judgment against the City or settlement in the Locus Action.

Second Cause of Action
(Recovery of Costs of Defense Against Great Northern)

59. The City repeats and re-alleges paragraph 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.

60. Beginning with City's original lender of the defense of the Locus Action, Great Northern has been obligated to defend the City.  

61. Despite the City's demand that Great Northern provide the City with a defense to the Locus Action, Great Northern has failed and refused to do so.

62. When an insurance carrier has wrongfully refused to acknowledge its defense obligation, the Law Department charges the carrier $250 an hour for attorney time and $75 an hour for paralegal time.

63. Great Northern is accordingly liable for the City's defense costs in the Locus Action. beginning wit the date of the City's original tender through the date of Frontier's assumption of the City's defense, at the rate of $250 an hour for attorney time and $75 an hour for paralegal time, plus out-of-pocket costs and interest.

Third Cause of Action
(Indemnification Against Great Northern)

64. The City repeats and realleges paragraph 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.

65. The City is an additional insured under the Great Northern Policy.

66. Great Norther is obligated to indemnify to City in Locus Action.

67. Great Northern has breached its obligation to indemnify the City by its failure to respond to the City's tenders with respect to the Locus Action.

68. Great Northern is accordingly liable for any judgment entered against: the City or settlement entered into by the City in Locus Action.

Fourth Cause of Action
(Breach of Duty of Good Faith Against Great Northern)

69. The City repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set  forth herein.

70. Great Northern owed a duty of good faith to it insureds.  Plus and the City, in  defending and settling the claims asserted in the Locus Action.

71. Great Northern settled the claims against Plus in the Locus Actioin for $1,000,000, the full limit of the Great Northern Policy.]

72. At the time that Great Northern settled the claims against Plus in the Locus Action, it had failed to respond to City's outstanding tender.

73. Great Northern breached its duty of good faith by settling the  claims against Pius in the Locus Action for the full limit of the Great Northern Policy without consideration of the City's interests.

74. Great Northern is accordingly liable for any judgment entered against the City of settled entered into by the City in Locus Action.

Fifth Cause of Action
(Declaration of Duty to Defend and Indemnify Against Westchester)

75. The City repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.

76. Westchester is obligated to defend and indemnify the City in the Locus Action.

77. Westchester failed to respond to the City's original, timely tender of the Locus Action.

78. Westchester failed to respond to the City's demand for a defense is the Locus Action on or about January 4, 1999.

79. Westchester May 5, 2011 disclaimer of coverage violates the Westchester Umbrella Policy and the law.

80. The settlement of the claims against Pius in the Locus Action will exhaust the Great Northern Policy and the City will be required to seek its defense and indemnify from Westchester.

81. There is therefore an actual controversy of a justiciable nature between the City and Westchester as to whether  Westchester is obligated to defend and indemnify the City in the Locus Action under the terms of the Westchester Umbrella Policy.  A judicial declarations that Westchester  is obligated to defend and indemnify the City that Westchester is obligated to defend and indemnify the City is necessary and appropriate at this time because, as a result of Westchester's failure to accept the City's tender, the City may be liable for any judgement entered against the City or settlement entered into by the City in the Locus Action.

Sixth Cause of Action
(Indemnify Against Westchester)

82. The City repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as of fully set forth herein.

83. The  City is an additionally insured under the Westchester Umbrella Policy.

84. Westchester is obligated to indemnify the City for any damages in the Locus Action.

85. Westchester's May 5, 2011 disclaimer of coverage is a breach of its obligation to indemnify the City.

86. Westchester is accordingly liable for any judgment entered agains the City or settlement enter into by the City in the Locus 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.