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


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 or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
2:12-mc-00096 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Greg Dorland
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Eastern District of California
Date Filed: 
Nov 27 2012

"Petitioners, Greg Dorland, Debra MacRorie and Legato Adventures, LLC, hereby allege:

1. Petitioners GREG DORLAND, DEBRA MACRORIE, and LEGATO ADVENTURES, LLC. and Respondent ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, are parties to a Yachtsman/Boatsman Policy, specifically Policy Number Y08827491 in effect from August 8, 2011, through August 8, 2012. A true and correct copy of the policy is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of the policy declarations page is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.

2. The Yachtsman/Boatsman Policy (Exhibit A) provides for arbitration of any dispute of a claim that might arise under the policy. Specifically, the policy states as follows:

ARBITRATION: Any controversy or claim, whether based on contract, tort, statute or other legal or equitable theory (including but 27 not limited to any claim of fraud, misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement, arising out of or related to this policy, the interpretation, enforcement, or breach thereof, or the handling of any claim involving this policy), shall be referred to and settled by arbitration in accordance with the then current CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution Rules for Non-Administered Arbitration and this provision. The 2 arbitration shall be governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, implemented at 9 U.S.C. 3 §§ 201-208, or if said Convention shall be held not to be applicable, by the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ MA-14558b to the exclusion of any provision of state or other law inconsistent therewith
or which would produce a different result, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered by any court having jurisdiction. The arbitration shall be held in the State appearing in your address as contained upon the Declarations Page and in accordance with the following procedure:

a. You and we will agree on a single arbitrator to decide the dispute, whose fee will be paid fifty percent (50%) by you and us;
b. If you and we are unable to agree on a single arbitrator, you and we will each appoint an arbitrator and those two (2)
arbitrators will appoint a third arbitrator. The three (3) arbitrators will decide the dispute by a majority vote. You
will pay the fee of the arbitrator that you appoint. We will pay the fee of the arbitrator that we appoint. You and we
will each pay fifty percent (50%) of the fee charged by the third arbitrator;
c. You and we will each pay fifty percent (50%) of the fee charged by the American Arbitration Association to coordinate the arbitration;
d. The request for arbitration must be filed within one (1) year of the date of loss or damage; and
e. We may arbitrate the amount of your loss or damage without waiving our right to determine coverage or a lack of coverage for the loss.

3. Said insurance policy agreement was entered into and was to be performed in California. Legato Adventures, LLC, principal place of business is P.O. Box 2550, 3080 Broken Arrow Place, Olympic Valley, California 96146, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner alleges that venue in this court is proper.

4. This petition involves a dispute between citizens of different states as Petitioner is a Limited Liability Company domiciled in the State of Oregon. Respondent insurance company in incorporated in the State of Pennsylvania. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Jurisdiction is, therefore, proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.

5. A controversy has arisen out of the agreement. Petitioners had in effect an insurance policy providing coverage for property damage. On or about June 5, 2012, lighting struck and damaged the mast on Petitioners' Catana 52 Escapade. It has been determined that the mast needs to be replaced at a cost in excess of $200,000.00, on information and belief. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to provide coverage for the claim and replace the mast.

6. On October 11, 2012 Petitioners requested Respondent either replace the mast or proceed with arbitration of said controversy in the manner provided in the agreement, but
Respondent refused, and continues to refuse to do so.

7. On November 2, 2012, Petitioners sent Respondent a demand for arbitration pursuant to the CPR Procedures & Clauses Non Administered Arbitration Rule 3.3 of said controversy in the manner provided in the agreement, but Respondent refused, and continues to refuse to do so.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for an order compelling arbitration of the controversy in accordance with the agreement and for such other and further relief as the court deemed 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.