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

GRINDSTAFF ET AL v. ACE AMERICAN 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: 
5:12-cv-00670 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Michael A Grindstaff
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Western District of Oklahoma
Date Filed: 
Jun 12 2012

Count ([ Bad Faith

24. Defendant ACE and its agents and/or its employees were unreasonable in their investigation, evaluation, interpretation of coverage, and payment of policy benefits that are due and owing to the plaintiffs.

25. Defendant ACE breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in an unreasonable investigation and evaluation, which included, inter alia, Defendant's refusal to communicate with Plaintiff in any good faith manner and a reckless misevaluation of the circumstances and damage to the Property.

26. The unreasonable conduct of Defendant ACE in the handling of Plaintiffs Claim was willful and wanton or committed with such a reckless di sregard to the rights of Plaintiffs that punitive damages are warranted.

27. Plaintiff hereby request that the matters set forth herein be determined by a JUry.

28. Among olher bad faith acts, ACE ignored a pair of engineering assessments of the Property in which lhe engineers identified that the Property had suffered a permanent and total loss. ACE as an insurer has a duty to fairly and in good faitll investigate all aspecls of the Claim. ACE unreasonably breached its duty to conduct a fair and in good faith investigation of the Claim when it (I) ignored the engineering assessments, and again (2) by never consulting any engineer or qualified persons to investigate the nature and scope of plaintiffs' Claim.

29. ACE also violated the insurance industry standards relative to communicating with the Plaintiffs by failing to respond to Plaintiffs' inquiries within a reasonable time and often not at all. One example of ACE's failure to furni sh its insured, i.e., the Plaintiffs, with an adequate response to their inquiry is ACE never responded to email from Plaintiff Mike Grindstaff inquiring about the status of his Claim, which was sent to Claims Representative Gillicinski on July 22, 2011. ACE has a duty to communicate with the plaintiffs about their claim. See, Title 36 O.S. § 1250.4. And ACE unreasonably breached its duty to communicate with regard to lhe July 22, 20 II, inquiry and other legitimates inquiries of the plainliffs about the Claim.

30. Wherefore, having properly plead, Plainti ffs seek judgment in their favor and against each one of the ACE Defendants, jointly and severall y, in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, for actual and punitive damages, costs, interest, attorney fees, and any other relief that the Court may during this lawsuit find appropriate.
 

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.