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

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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: 
3:12-cv-00433 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
United States of America
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Middle District of Tennessee
Date Filed: 
Apr 30 2012

"CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count I -- Negligence

190. The allegations set forth hereinabove are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

191. At all relevant times, Defendant was responsible for the implementation, execution, operation, management, maintenance, procedures, supervision, control, application of scientific and engineering principles, meteorological and hydrological analyses and assessments, exchange of scientific data and river stage forecasting for the Cumberland River, and public dissemination of weather warnings and flood warnings.

192. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiffs, as well as all other persons and property owners located near the Cumberland River who might foreseeably be harmed, to exercise due care in the implementation, execution, operation, management, maintenance, procedures, supervision, control, application of scientific and engineering principles, meteorological and hydrological analyses and assessments, exchange of scientific data and river stage forecasting for the Cumberland River, and public dissemination of weather warnings and flood warnings with respect to the projects located on the Cumberland River and to refrain from negligent acts or omissions in carrying out those responsibilities.

193. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiffs, as well as all other persons and property owners located near the Cumberland River who might foreseeably be harmed, to exercise due care in the collection, exchange, use and dissemination of scientific data, information and analyses and assessments regarding meteorological and hydrological conditions, predictions and forecasting during the May 2010 storm event, and all of the duties described in this complaint and to refrain from negligent acts or omissions in carrying out those responsibilities.

194. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiffs to use due care in the exercise of its scientific and engineering judgment and expertise relating to the meteorological and hydrological conditions presented during the May 2010 storm event and to refrain from negligent acts or omissions in carrying out those responsibilities.

195. At all time relevant to this litigation, Defendant knew or should have known that its failure to exercise due care in the performance of its duties and failure to warn of life- threatening and dangerous conditions could foreseeably result in devastating harm to Plaintiffs and all other persons and property owners located near the Cumberland River.

196. Defendant’s conduct and/or failure to act fell below the standard of care owed to Plaintiffs, constituting breaches of those duties.

197. Plaintiffs suffered catastrophic injuries and losses to their real property, personal property, and business operations as a result of Defendant’s breaches of duties of care owed to Plaintiffs.

198. The risk of harm to Plaintiffs and the ensuing harm actually suffered by Plaintiffs was reasonably foreseeable.

199. Each Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this action.

200. Old Hickory Dam, Cheatham Dam and Cordell Hull Dam located on the Cumberland River and operated by the USACE were authorized, funded and built for power generation and navigation, and not as flood control projects.

201. Defendant’s negligent acts and omissions were such that the United States and its agencies, if private persons, would be liable to Plaintiffs in accordance with the laws of the State of Tennessee where the negligent acts and omissions occurred.

202. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused in fact by Defendant’s breaches of the duties owed to Plaintiffs.

203. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were proximately caused by Defendant’s breaches of the duties owed to Plaintiffs.

204. As a foreseeable, direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered significant damages, including: loss of personal property; damage to real property; diminution in value of real and personal property; costs of repair, restoration and renovation of real and personal property; loss of business income and profits; loss of business, customers and goodwill; interruption in business operations; costs of this lawsuit and attorneys fees.

Count II – Gross Negligence

205. The allegations set forth hereinabove are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

206. At all relevant times, Defendant was responsible for the implementation, execution, operation, management , maintenance, procedures, supervision, control, application of scientific and engineering principles, meteorological and hydrological analyses and assessments,
exchange of scientific data and river stage forecasting for the Cumberland River, and publicdissemination of weather warnings and flood warnings.

207. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiffs, as well as all other persons and property owners located near the Cumberland River who might foreseeably be harmed, to exercise due care in the implementation, execution, operation, management, maintenance, procedures, supervision, control, application of scientific and engineering principles, meteorological and hydrological analyses and assessments, exchange of scientific data and river stage forecasting for the Cumberland River, and public dissemination of weather warnings and flood warnings with respect to the projects located on the Cumberland River and to refrain from negligent acts or omissions in carrying out those responsibilities.

208. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiffs, as well as all other persons and property owners located near the Cumberland River who might foreseeably be harmed, to exercise due care in the collection, exchange, use and dissemination of scientific data, information and analyses and assessments regarding meteorological and hydrological conditions, predictions and forecasting during the May 2010 storm event, and all of the duties described in this complaint and to refrain from negligent acts or omissions in carrying out those responsibilities.

209. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiffs to use due care in the exercise of its scientific and engineering judgment and expertise relating to the meteorological and hydrological conditions presented during the May 2010 storm event and to refrain from negligent acts or omissions in carrying out those responsibilities.

210. At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendant knew or should have known that its failure to exercise due care in the performance of its duties and failure to warn of lifethreatening and dangerous conditions could foreseeably result in devastating harm to Plaintiffs and all other persons and property owners located near the Cumberland River.

211. Defendant’s conduct and/or failure to act fell below the duties of care owed to Plaintiffs, constituting breaches of those duties.

212. Defendant’s negligent acts or omissions were done with reckless disregard or conscious indifference for the risks of harm to the rights and property of Plaintiffs and, therefore, constitute gross negligence.

213. Plaintiffs suffered catastrophic injuries and losses to their real property, personal property, and business operations as a result of the grossly negligent acts and omissions of Defendant.

214. The risk of harm to Plaintiffs and the ensuing harm actually suffered by Plaintiffs was reasonably foreseeable.

215. Each Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this action.

216. Old Hickory Dam, Cheatham Dam and Cordell Hull Dam located on the Cumberland River and operated by the USACE were authorized, funded and built for power generation and navigation, and not as flood control projects.

217. Defendant’s grossly negligent acts and omissions were such that the United States and its agencies, if private persons, would be liable to Plaintiffs in accordance with the laws of the State of Tennessee where the negligent acts and omissions occurred.

218. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs was caused in fact by Defendant’s grossly negligent acts and omissions.

219. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs was proximately caused by Defendant’s grossly negligent acts and omissions.

220. As foreseeable, direct and proximate causes of Defendant’s gross negligence, Plaintiffs suffered significant damages, including: loss of personal property; damage to real property; diminution in value of real and personal property; costs of repair, restoration and renovation of real and personal property; loss of income and profits; loss of business, customers and goodwill; interruption in business operations; costs of this lawsuit and attorneys’ fees."

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.