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

FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NATIONAL PASSENGER RAILROAD CORPORATION 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: 
1:14-cv-01349 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District Court for the District of Columbia
Date Filed: 
Aug 8 2014

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiff First State Insurance Company ("First State") by and through its undersigned
counsel, hereby alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT
1. This is an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, relating
to claims for insurance coverage for underlying lawsuits and/or claims against National
Passenger Railroad Corporation ("Amtrak") alleging that Amtrak is responsible for
environmental contamination occurring at various sites, including Ivy City Yard in the District of
Columbia and other sites along railways and at rail yards throughout the country (the
"Environmental Claims").
2. First State issued certain excess insurance policies to Amtrak between June 1,
1982 and October 1, 1984.
3. On information and belief, each of the defendant insurance companies (the
"Defendant Insurers") issued one or more excess policies to Amtrak between 1972 and 1985 that
may provide coverage for the Environmental Claims. Additionally, the Doe Insurers may have
issued policies to Amtrak that may provide coverage for the Environmental Claims.
4. First State seeks declarations regarding: (i) whether and to what extent First
State, the Defendant Insurers and/or the Doe Insurers have coverage obligations to Amtrak for
the Environmental Claims; (ii) whether and to what extent First State, the Defendant Insurers
and/or the Doe Insurers are obligated to defend Amtrak or to reimburse Amtrak for defense costs
incurred in connection with the Environmental Claims; (iii) whether and to what extent First
State, the Defendant Insurers and/or the Doe Insurers are obligated to indemnify Amtrak in
connection with the Environmental Claims; and (iv) Amtrak's, First State's, the Defendant
Insurers' and/or the Doe Insurers' respective properly allocable share, if any, of defense and
indemnity costs incurred in connection with the Environmental Claims.
5. Actual controversies exist between and among the parties necessitating
declarations regarding the parties' respective rights and obligations related to the Environmental
Claims.

PARTIES
6. First State Insurance Company is a Connecticut corporation with its principal
place of business in Connecticut.
7. On information and belief, Defendant Amtrak is a District of Columbia
Corporation with its principal place of business in the District of Columbia. Amtrak was created
by Congress pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 24301 and the federal government owns more than 50% of
the capital stock of Amtrak.
8. On information and belief, Defendant Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company,
formerly Allianz Underwriters Inc. ("Allianz"), is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in California and conducts business in the District of Columbia.
9. On information and belief, Defendant Allstate Insurance Company, as successor
in interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company, formerly Northbrook Insurance
Company ("Allstate"), is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois
and conducts business in the District of Columbia.
10. On information and belief, Defendant American Home Assurance Company
("American Home") is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York
and conducts business in the District of Columbia.
11. On information and belief, Defendant American Insurance Company
("American") is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in California and
conducts business in the District of Columbia.
12. On information and belief, Defendant Argonaut Insurance Company ("Argonaut")
is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Texas and conducts business in
the District of Columbia.
13. On information and belief, Defendant Century Indemnity Company, as successor
to Cigna Specialty Insurance Company (formerly known as California Union Insurance
Company) and the Insurance Company of North America ("Century"), is a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania and conducts business in the
District of Columbia.
14. On information and belief, Defendant Continental Insurance Company, as
successor in interest to Harbor Insurance Company and Pacific Insurance Company
("Continental"), is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois and
conducts business in the District of Columbia.
15. On information and belief, Defendant Employers Insurance Company of Wausau
("Wausau") is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts and
conducts business in the District of Columbia.
16. On information and belief, Defendant Evanston Insurance Company ("Evanston")
is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois and conducts business in
the District of Columbia.
17. On information and belief, Defendant Granite State Insurance Company ("Granite
State") is Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New York and
conducts business in the District of Columbia.
18. On information and belief, Defendant Insurance Company of the State of
Pennsylvania ("ICSOP") is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in
New York and conducts business in the District of Columbia.
19. On information and belief, Defendant Lexington Insurance Company
("Lexington") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts
and conducts business in the District of Columbia.
20. On information and belief, Defendant Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.
("Munich Re") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey and
conducts business in the District of Columbia.
21. On information and belief, Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA, for itself and as successor to Landmark Insurance Company ("National Union"),
is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New York and conducts
business in the District of Columbia.
22. On information and belief, Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
("Nationwide") is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio and conducts
business in the District of Columbia.
23. On information and belief, Defendant TIG Insurance Company, as successor to
International Surplus Lines Insurance Company ("TIG"), is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in New Hampshire and conducts business in the District of Columbia.
24. On information and belief, Defendant Yosemite Insurance Company
("Yosemite") is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana and
conducts business in the District of Columbia.
25. On information and belief, Defendants Doe Insurers 1-100 include Certain
London Market Insurance Companies and additional domestic insurance companies not
specifically named herein which may have coverage obligations for the Environmental Claims
under policies issued to Amtrak. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or
otherwise, of Doe Insurers 1 through 100 are unknown to First State at the present time and these
Defendants are therefore sued by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of
said Doe Insurers have been ascertained, First State will seek to amend this Complaint to include
such true names and capacities.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26. The Court has jurisdiction over First State's claims against Amtrak pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1349. The Court has jurisdiction over First State's claims against the
Defendant Insurers pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because these claims arise from a common
nucleus of operative facts as First State's claims against Amtrak.
27. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because
Amtrak is a resident of the District of Columbia.

THE INSURANCE POLICIES
28. On information and belief, in every year from 1972 to 1985, Amtrak's insurance
program includes self-insured retentions, pursuant to which Amtrak is responsible for amounts
incurred in connection with the Environmental Claims up to the amount of the retention. On
information and belief, Amtrak's yearly self-insured retention is $1 million per occurrence from
1972 to 1974 and $2 million per occurrence from 1974 to 1985.
29. First State issued the following excess liability policies to Amtrak (collectively,
the "First State Policies"):
Policy Number
934018
980101
980102
980103
RR 000015
RE 000002
RE 000003
RE 000004
Policy Period
06/01/82-10/01/83
06/01/82-10/01/83
06/01/82-10/01/83
06/01/82-10/01/83
10/01/83-10/01/84
10/01/83-10/01/84
10/01/83-10/01/84
10/01/83-10/01/84
First State has no potential obligation under the First State Policies to provide coverage to
Amtrak for the Environmental Claims unless and until the applicable underlying insurance,
including any self-insured retentions, is properly exhausted.
30. First State's coverage obligations to Amtrak for the Environmental Claims, if any,
are governed by the terms, limitations, definitions, conditions, and exclusions of the First State
Policies, including without limitation, conditions precedent, attachment points, limits of liability,
requirements of exhaustion of other insurance, notice requirements and the pollution exclusions
contained in the First State Policies, which may limit or preclude coverage for the Environmental
Claims.
31. On information and belief, Defendant Allianz issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1983 and 1985 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
32. On information and belief, Defendant Allstate issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1974 and 1983 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
33. On information and belief, Defendant American Home issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1974 and 1977 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
34. On information and belief, Defendant American issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1983 and 1985 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
35. On information and belief, Defendant Argonaut issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1972 and 1977 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
36. On information and belief, Defendant Century issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1972 and 1985 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
37. On information and belief, Defendant Continental issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1977 and 1985 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
38. On information and belief, Defendant Wausau issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1981 and 1984 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
39. On information and belief, Defendant Evanston issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1984 and 1985 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
40. On information and belief, Defendant Granite State issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1978 and 1983 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
41. On information and belief, Defendant ICSOP issued one or more excess insurance
policies to Amtrak between 1972 and 1977 that may provide coverage for the Environmental
Claims.
42. On information and belief, Defendant Lexington issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1983 and 1984 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
43. On information and belief, Defendant Munich Re issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1972 and 1974 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
44. On information and belief, Defendant National Union issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1984 and 1985 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
45. On information and belief, Defendant Nationwide issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1972 and 1974 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
46. On information and belief, Defendant TIG issued one or more excess insurance
policies to Amtrak between 1972 and 1985 that may provide coverage for the Environmental
Claims.
47. On information and belief, Defendant Yosemite issued one or more excess
insurance policies to Amtrak between 1974 and 1975 that may provide coverage for the
Environmental Claims.
48. On information and belief, the Doe Insurers, including Certain London Market
Insurers, may have issued policies to Amtrak between 1972 and 1985 that may provide coverage
for the Environmental Claims. When the true names and capacities of said Doe Insurers have
been ascertained, First State will seek to amend this Complaint to include such true names and
capacities.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS AND THE PARTIES' DISPUTE
49. On information and belief, Amtrak is alleged to be responsible for environmental
contamination at nearly forty different sites throughout the country, including Ivy City Yard in
the District of Columbia.
50. On information and belief, Amtrak has spent amounts in connection with the
Environmental Claims that it alleges are sufficient to implicate coverage under some or all of the
First State Policies and/or the policies issued by the Defendant Insurers and/or the Doe Insurers.
Accordingly, on information and belief, Amtrak alleges that First State, the Defendant Insurers
and/or the Doe Insurers are obligated defend and/or reimburse Amtrak for defense and indemnity
costs in connection with the Environmental Claims. First State disagrees.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaration of Coverage
51. First State repeats and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully set forth
herein.
52. First State seeks a judicial declaration as to whether and to what extent First State,
the Defendant Insurers and/or the Doe Insurers have coverage obligations to Amtrak for the
Environmental Claims.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Duty to Defend and/or Pay Defense Costs
53. First State repeats and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 52 as if fully set forth
herein.
54. First State seeks a judicial declaration as to whether and to what extent First State,
the Defendant Insurers and/or the Doe Insurers are obligated to defend Amtrak and/or to
reimburse Amtrak for defense costs incurred in connection with the Environmental Claims.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Duty to Pay Indemnity Costs
55. First State repeats and incorporates Paragraph 1 through 54 as if fully set forth
herein.
56. First State seeks a judicial declaration as to whether and to what extent First State,
the Defendant Insurers and/or the Doe Insurers are obligated to pay Amtrak's indemnity costs in
connection with the Environmental Claims.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Allocation of Defense and Indemnity Costs
57. First State repeats and incorporates Paragraph 1 through 56 as if fully set forth
herein.
58. To the extent First State is found to have obligations for the Environmental
Claims, First State seeks a judicial declaration as to Amtrak's, First State's, the Defendant
Insurers' and/or the Doe Insurers' respective properly allocable share of defense and indemnity
costs incurred by Amtrak in connection with the Environmental Claims.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, First State respectfully requests that the Court enter the following relief:
A. A declaration as to whether and to what extent First State, the Defendant Insurers
and/or the Doe Insurers have coverage obligations to Amtrak for the
Environmental Claims;
B. A declaration as to whether and to what extent First State, the Defendant Insurers
and/or the Doe Insurers are obligated to defend Amtrak or to reimburse Amtrak for
defense costs incurred in the Environmental Claims;
C. A declaration as to whether and to what extent First State, the Defendant Insurers
and/or the Doe Insurers are obligated to pay Amtrak's indemnity costs in
connection with the Environmental Claims;
D. A declaration as to Amtrak's, First State's, the Defendant Insurers' and/or the Doe
Insurers' respective properly allocable share of defense and indemnity costs
incurred by Amtrak in connection with the Environmental Claims;
E. An award of attorneys' fees, expenses, interest and costs associated with this suit;
and
F. Such other and further relief in favor of First State as the Court may deem just and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
First State demands trial by jury of all factual causes of action raised by this Complaint.

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.