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

D.R. HORTON, INC. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE 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: 
2:11-cv-00059 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
D.R. Horton, Inc.
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of Nevada
Date Filed: 
Jan 12 2011

"149. DRH has tendered its defense to Illinois Union on multiple occasions, but Illinois Union has refused to either accept or deny DRH's tender.
150. Illinois Union's handling of these claims was unreasonable, oppressive and malicious, violated Nevada law governing fair claims practices and warrants an award of punitive damages.
151. Westchester issued policy numbers GLW777287, GLW82924 and G2198209AOOl and other policies to H&B Construction naming DRH as an additional insured and agreeing to provide DRH commercial general liability insurance coverage.
152. DRH has tendered its defense to Westchester, but Westchester has refused to acknowledge DRH's tender or to either accept or deny DRH's tender.
153. Westchester's handling of these claims was unreasonable, oppressive and malicious, violated Nevada law governing fair claims practices and warrants an award of punitive damages.
174. Ace issued policy number G21808672 and other policies to Maytag and/or Whirlpool, naming DRH as an additional insured and agreeing to provide DRH commercial general liability insurance coverage.
175. DRH tendered its defense to Ace on multiple occasions under all policies of insurance issued to Maytag and/or Whirlpool.
176. Ace has failed to even acknowledge DRH's tenders and has ignored its obligations to DRH as its insured.
177. Ace's handling of these claims was unreasonable, oppressive and malicious, violated Nevada law governing fair claims practices and warrants an award of punitive damages.
188. A covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied into every contract construed pursuant to Nevada law, including the policies mentioned hereinabove.
189. The carriers breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in various ways, including but not limited to denying DRH's claims, not fully funding DRH's defense and as such, performed in a manner unfaithful to the terms of the policies."

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.