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

DEL WEBB COMMUNITIES INC. ET AL v. ARCH 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: 
8:13-cv-01767 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Del Webb Communities Inc.
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Central District of California
Date Filed: 
Nov 7 2013

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
The Sun City Grand Project
15. Del Webb is a homebuilder that participated in the construction of a
residential development known as Sun City Grand, located in Surprise, Arizona
("Sun City Grand").
16. Del Webb performed no work on the homes at Sun City Grand; instead,
all work was performed by subcontractors.
17. AMP AM Riggs Plumbing Inc. f/k/a Keith Riggs Plumbing
("AMPAM") performed plumbing and related work at Sun City Grand, including
but not limited to installing pipes and the "Wirsbo plumbing fitting" in each of the
homes constructed at Sun City Grand.
The AMPAM Policies
18. AMPAM performed work at Sun City Grand pursuant to one or more
written subcontracts that it entered into with Del Webb.

21. The AMP AM Policies were endorsed to cover Del Webb as an
"additional insured" with respect to liability arising out of AMP AM's work.
22. The coverage afforded under the AMP AM Policies requires Defendants
Arch, Ace, Liberty, and National Union to pay all sums Del Webb is legally
obligated to pay as damages because of property damage or bodily injury during the
policy period caused by an occurrence, and arising out of AMPAM's work.
23. The coverage afforded under the AMP AM policies also requires
Defendants Arch, Ace, Liberty and National Union to defend Del Webb against all
claims that create potential liability for covered property damage or bodily injury,
even if such claims are groundless, false or fraudulent.
The Underlying Actions
24. Homeowners in Sun City Grand filed a consolidated civil action, Fern
Ash, etal. v. Del Webb Communities, Inc., et al, Maricopa County Superior Court
Case No. CV-2012-006568 (the "Ash Action"), initiated an arbitration proceeding,
Lawrence and Sharon Levinson, etal. v. Del Webb Communities, Inc., etal.,
American Arbitration Association Case No. 11-527-0130711 (the "Levinson
Action"), and filed a class action, Jerry L. Richards, et al. v. Del Webb
Communities, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Case No. CV11-00368-PHX-SMM (the "Richards Action"), against Del Webb
alleging, among other things, that the homes at Sun City Grand contained
construction deficiencies, that these deficiencies had caused property damage and/or
bodily injury, and that Del Webb was liable for these damages.

25. The Ash, Levinson, and Richards Actions (collectively, the
"Underlying Actions") seek damages from Del Webb for property damage and/or
bodily injury arising out of the work, operations or ongoing operations of AMP AM.
26. As result of the homeowner claims in the Underlying Actions, Del
Webb has incurred more than $1,000,000.00 in defense-related expenses in these
Actions collectively.
27. Furthermore, because the Underlying Actions are ongoing, Del Webb
will continue to incur additional costs, expenses, and fees in the future, including
possible settlement costs and the costs of a potential judgment.
Defendants Respond to the Underlying Actions
28. Del Webb promptly requested that each Defendant defend Del Webb
against the Underlying Actions. Each Defendant breached its duty to defend Del
Webb by (1) refusing to defend Del Webb, (2) by agreeing to defend Del Webb
against these matters but failing to reimburse any of Del Webb previously-incurred
defense-related expenses or commit to funding Del Webb's future defense-related
expenses, or (3) never responding at all to Del Webb's tender of defense.
29. More specifically, Defendants Ace and National Union refused to
defend Del Webb against the Underlying Actions; while Defendant Liberty
acknowledged that it owes Del Webb a defense obligation in the Underlying
Actions, but it has delayed and stonewalled paying defense-related expenses.
Defendant Arch failed to provide Del Webb with any coverage position whatsoever.
30. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Del Webb was forced to expend significant resources defending itself against the Underlying Actions.

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.