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

HARRISON et al v. BANKERS STANDARD 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: 
3:13-cv-01682 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Jack D. Harrison
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of California
Date Filed: 
Jul 18 2013

"FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment Against Ace and American)

49. The Harrisons incorporate by reference all of the allegations above.

50. Defendants Ace and American have a duty to reimburse the Harrisons for the costs incurred and claims made in connection with the theft of their personal property in the total amount of $722,456.49

51. The Insurance Policies apply to the claims of the Harrisons. The Defendants should have promptly paid the above amount and have failed and refused to do so.

52. The Harrisons seek a judgment that Ace and American provide full coverage for the claim and have an obligation to pay $722,456.49.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract Against Ace and American)

53. The Harrisons incorporate all of the above allegations by reference.

54. At all relevant times the Insurance Policies were in full force and effect.

55. The loss of the Harrisons personal property is a covered loss for the full amount of replacement value.

56. The Harrisons have complied with all the conditions of the Insurance Policies.

57. Defendants have failed and refused to fully compensate the Harrisons for their loss.

58. As a direct result the Harrisons have been damaged in the amount of the current replacement value of their property in an amount exceeding $455,953.47.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Violations of California Unfair Insurance Practices Act B&P Code §17200 Against
Ace and American)

59. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the allegations set forth above as though set forth herein.

60. The insurance business is highly competitive. Defendants advertise heavily.

61. Defendants when trying to sell insurance state their coverage is broad and they will favor the insured’s and promptly and efficiently handle claims.

62. For example American states:
“Your Claim Will Be Completed Promptly After a prompt and fair assessment, your claim will be completed as quickly as possible. Our team members will contact you as necessary, and you’re always encouraged to call us at 1-800- MYAMFAM (1-800-692-6326) when you have questions or concerns.”

63. For example Ace states:
“Claims play a critical role in an insurance company. Our clients buy a promise from us, so when a loss occurs we strive to make a difficult situation as positive as possible. ACE is committed to delivering a claims experience with a consistent level of service and satisfaction. Backed by consistently high ratings from the industry’s principal rating agencies, ACE is financially strong and able to meet our obligations to our customers.”

64. These statements are false in that Defendants don’t make a prompt and fair assessment of claims or strive to make a difficult situation as positive as possible.

65. The conduct of defendants as alleged herein violates the California Unfair Practices Act, B&P Code section 17200.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Against All Defendants – First Party Claim)

66. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though set forth in full.

67. There is in every insurance contract, an implied covenant by each party not to take any step or refuse to deprive the other party of the benefit of the contract.

68. By among other things, engaging in the acts and omissions alleged above, Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

69. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs have sustained damages, including without limitation the policy benefits of an amount exceeding $455,953.47 plus interest at the legal rate from the date of Plaintiffs’ claim.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud Against Ace and BBVA)

70. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though set forth in full.

71. The plaintiffs stated to BBVA, the agent of Ace, that they wanted to be sure they had full coverage for the move they were making from Colorado to California and asked if they should purchase additional insurance from the truck rental company they were using.

72. BBVA’s employee, Paula Brevig, told the Plaintiffs they would have full coverage and it would not be necessary to purchase additional insurance.

73. This was false since the Ace policy purported to have a special limit of 10% of the amount of the claim under certain conditions when moving.

74. Plaintiffs reasonable relied on the representations of Defendants and did not purchase any other insurance.

75. In spite of the statements of BVVD, Defendant Ace subsequently and continues to claim there is not full coverage.

76. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs have sustained damages, including without limitation the policy benefits of an amount exceeding $455,953.47 plus interest at the legal rate from the date of Plaintiffs’ claim.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Misrepresentation Against Ace and BVVD)

77. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though set forth in full.

78. BVDD through its employee represented to Plaintiffs that an important fact was true; that they had full insurance coverage for their move.

79. BVDD’s representation was not true;

80. BVDD’s employee may have honestly believed that the representation was true but she had no reasonable grounds for believing the representation was true when she made it;

81. Defendants intended that the Harrisons rely on this representation;

82. Plaintiffs did reasonably rely on the representation;

83. Plaintiffs’ reliance on the representation was a substantial factor in causing their harm.

84. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs have sustained damages, including without limitation the policy benefits of an amount exceeding $455,953.47 plus interest at the legal rate from the date of Plaintiffs’ claim."

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.