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

DRAIZEN, et al v. ACE WESTCHESTER, 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-01717 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Robert Draizen
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of California
Date Filed: 
Oct 14 2011

"FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Against all Defendants)

18. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 17 as though fully set forth herein.

19. Defendant, in derogation of its duty to its insureds, refused to provide coverage for the insureds.

20. Defendant breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to the insureds by unreasonably and without proper cause for denying coverage to the insureds, despite the knowledge or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that the insureds were entitled to coverage
under the terms of the policy and that Plaintiffs' claim under the policy was clear as the lawsuit filed by Robert Ennis falls into the category of liability purchased by Plaintiffs from Defendants. Defendants were fully aware that their liability to pay policy limits was clear.

21. Prior to the commencement of this action, the insureds in writing and for a valuable consideration, assigned to Plaintiffs herein all of their rights, title, and interest in and to their cause of action as herein alleged against Defendant

22. Defendant, and each of them, further breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to the insureds by other acts or omissions which are presently unknown and will be shown according to proof.

23. As a proximate result of the unreasonable, causeless and bad faith conduct without proper cause, as set forth, the insureds have suffered economic and consequential damages in an amount to be shown at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract against all Defendants)

24. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 as though fully set forth herein.

25. On or about March 7,2007, Plaintiffs entered into a written contract with Defendant ACE WESTCHESTER for an insurance policy for Private Company Management Liability. The Insuring Agreements included Management Liability, Employment Practices Liability and Fiduciary Liability. The policy period was from 12:01 a.m. on March 2, 2007 to 12:01 a.m. on March 2,2008.

26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and herein allege, that the insureds performed all terms and conditions that the insureds were required to perform under the policy.

27. Defendants, and each of them, breached the contract with Plaintiffs by denying defense coverage for the Ennis action.

28. As a proximate result Defendant's breach of contract, the insureds have suffered economic and consequential damages in an amount to be shown at trial.

29. Further, Defendant acted with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights, warranting punitive damages to be awarded to Plaintiffs.

THIRD CAUSE W ACTION
(Bad Faith Denial of Coverage Against all Defendants)

30. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set forth herein.

31. Under the terms of the policy, Defendant ACE WESTCHESTER was obligated to provide coverage-to Plaintiffs but did not provide defense coverage for the insureds.

32. On or about August 6, 2007, December 18, 2008, and February 18, 2010 Defendant ACE WESTCHESTER denied coverage to Plaintiffs.

33. • Defendant's refusal was unreasonable and made in bad faith, in that Defendant had no lawful or reasonable ground on which to refuse to provide defense coverage for the insureds.

34. In committing the acts herein alleged, Defendant acted in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and was guilty of malice, oppression, fraud in that Defendant has deliberately failed to provide payment on the judgment which they know is due to the Plaintiff under the policy and is being done with the intent to vex, injure or annoy Plaintiffs with conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights warranting punitive damages against the Defendant. Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive and exemplary damages.

35. As a proximate result of the unreasonable, causeless and bad faith conduct without proper cause, as set forth, the insureds have suffered economic and consequential damages in an amount to be shown at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. For general damages in an amount according to proof;

2. For punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294;

3. For fees and costs herein incurred; and Complaint for Damages"

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.