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

EAGLE, INC. v. ONEBEACON AMERICA 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: 
2:13-cv-06217 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Eagle, Inc.
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Louisiana
Date Filed: 
Oct 22 2013

COUNT I

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT -
DUTY TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

27. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and makes a part hereof each and every allegation
contained in the preceding sections of this Complaint and incorporates same by reference as
though fully set forth herein.

28. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201-2202, Eagle seeks declaratory judgment that
Defendants are obligated to defend and/or indemnify Eagle, in full, including, without
limitations, payment of the cost of investigations, defense, settlement and judgment ("Duty to
Defend and Indemnify"), for past, present and future Asbestos Claims under each of their
Policies triggered by those Asbestos Claims.

29. Eagle seeks declarations ancillary to this basic Duty to Defend and Indemnify,
including, without limitation:

a) a declaration and order that the Duty to Defend and Indemnify is joint and
indivisible;

b) a declaration and order that the Policies cover the Asbestos Claims
asserted against Eagle that allege either injurious exposure, progression of
injury and/or disease, manifestation of illness, or death during the
Defendants' policy periods;

c) a declaration and order that the scope of coverage available under
Defendants' Policies for the Asbestos Claims is not limited to the discrete
portion of injury that occurred during any particular policy period;

d) a declaration and order that the scope of coverage available under the
Policies for Asbestos Claims is "all sums" and is not limited to the discrete
portion of injury that occurred during any particular policy period;

e) a declaration and order that each Policy must cover the Asbestos Claims,
in full, up to their "per occurrence" limits, regardless of whether an
continuing injury spans multiple policy periods;

f) a declaration and order that the Asbestos Claims that allege exposure to
asbestos, for which Eagle is alleged to be liable, during Eagle's operations,
including Eagle's construction and/or insulation activities, are subject only
to the "per occurrence" limits of the Policies, and not subject to
"aggregate" limits, if any, of the Policies;

g) a declaration and order that any aggregate limit on coverage in any of the
Policies is a limitation on coverage, therefore Defendants have the burden
to prove, based on the evidence, any assertion by Defendants that any
particular Asbestos Claim is subject to the aggregate limits in their
Policies, if any

h) a declaration and order that the definition of "completed operations"
contained in at least some of the Policies is "ambiguous," and that certain
Asbestos Claims against Eagle must therefore be covered under the
portions of the Policies that supply the broadest available coverage;

i) a declaration and order that Defendants have the burden to prove, based
on the evidence, that any particular Asbestos Claim is either a "products"
claim or a "completed operations" claim, as those terms are defined in the
Policies, in order to subject the claim to the aggregate limits in their
Policies, if any;

j) a declaration and order that Eagle is entitled, at its own discretion, to
select the Policy or Policies, and the policy year or policy years, to which

to allocate defense and/or indemnity costs arising from the Asbestos
Claims;

k) a declaration and order that Eagle is not required to pay for self-insured or
uninsured years for the Asbestos Claims as long as it has available
insurance that is responsive to such claims;

1) a declaration and order that, to the extent that this becomes relevant, Eagle
is not obligated to pay any portion of defense and indemnity costs for the
Asbestos Claims or insolvent insurers, or otherwise unavailable policies,
as long as it has available insurance that covers such Asbestos Claims;

m) a declaration and order that the Asbestos Claims asserted against Eagle
have resulted, and continue to result, from multiple "occurrences" as that
term is used in the Policies and construed under applicable law;

n) a declaration and order that Defendants are obligated to defend, and/or pay
defense costs, and indemnify Eagle against all Asbestos Claims, regardless
of the form, or format, in which the claim for money is made;

o) a declaration and order that any Policy written for multiple annual periods
responds to the Asbestos Claims as if it was written for a series of oneyear
periods, with corresponding "per occurrence" limits; and

p) a declaration and order the any Policy containing a "stub" period, or less a
full annual period, provides Eagle with complete, annual "per occurrence"
limits, as opposed to a "pro rata" portion of those limits.

30. Defendants dispute the relief Eagle asserts is available under the Policies.
Consequently, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Eagle and Defendants
concerning Defendants' respective obligations under their Policies.

31. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time, and under the
circumstances alleged above, so that Eagle may ascertain its rights under the Policies. A judicial
declaration of Eagles rights under the Policies will obviate seriatim litigation and a multiplicity

of actions that otherwise would result from the actual and justiciable controversy between Eagle
and Defendants concerning their respective rights and obligations under 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.