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

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al v. PACIFIC EMPLOYERS 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-00055 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Hartford Fire Insurance Company
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of Nevada
Date Filed: 
Jan 11 2013

"COUNT I
Declaratory Judgment Against The Shapiro Defendants, The Trust Defendants and Man land Square

57. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

58. The Underlying Actions allege property damage for pollution arising out of SBIC's dry cleaning operations.

59. The Hartford Primary Policies and Hartford Umbrella Policies contain pollution exclusions that bar coverage for the Underlying Actions.

60. The Underlying Actions do not allege an "occurrence."

61. The Shapiro Defendants, the Trust Defendants and Maryland Square are not entitled to coverage under the Hartford Primary Policies or the Hartford Umbrella Policies to the extent the "property damage," if any, did not occur during the respective policy periods of the Hartford Primary Policies and/or Hartford Umbrella Policies.

62. The Shapiro Defendants, the Trust Defendants and Maryland Square are not entitled to coverage under the Hartford Primary Policies or the Hartford Umbrella Policies for "property damage," if any, that was expected or intended.

63. The Shapiro Defendants, the Trust Defendants and Maryland Square are not entitled to coverage under one or more of the Hartford Primary Policies or Hartford Umbrella Policies to the extent the claims alleged constituted a known loss or a loss in progress.

64. In addition, the claims of the Shapiro Defendants are barred by the doctrine of Accord and Satisfaction.

65. Other terms and conditions of the Hartford Primary Policies and/or the Hartford Umbrella Policies may also bar coverage for the Underlying Actions.

66. There is no possibility of coverage for the claims asserted in the Underlying Actions against the Shapiro Defendants, Trust Defendants and/or Maryland Square and/or for any indemnification paid by the Trust Defendants to Maryland Square.

67. Accordingly, a real, substantial and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Hartford on the one hand and the Shapiro Defendants, the Trust Defendants and Maryland Square on the other hand, which controversy is subject to resolution by this Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order declaring the following relief:
A. That Hartford has no obligation to defend and no obligation to indemnify the Shapiro Defendants, the Trust Defendants and/or Maryland Square with respect to the Underlying Actions;
B. Award Hartford its attorneys fees and costs in connection with this suit; and
C. For such other and further relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT II
Declaratory Judgment Against Maryland Square

68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

69. The Hartford Primary Policies and/or Hartford Umbrella Policies include an endorsement which adds the "Maryland Square Shopping Center" as additional insured. The endorsement states:
It is agreed that: ADDITIONAL INSUREDS AS FOLLOWS:
LOG 1 - 3659 SO MARYLAND PARKWAY, LAS VEGAS, NV
MARYLAND SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER
3661 SO MARYLAND PARKWAY
LAS VEGAS, NV 89101
part:

70. The "persons insured" provision of the Hartford Umbrella Policies provides, in relevant

III. PERSONS INSURED
Each of the following, including the named insured, is an insured under this insurance to the extent set forth below:
* * *
G. any person or organization to whom or to which the named insured is obligated by virtue of a written contract to provide insurance such as is afforded by this policy, but only with respect to operations performed by the named insured, or facilities owned or used by the named insured;

71. Hartford disputes that the endorsement and provision above provide insured status to Maryland Square.

72. According to the records of the Nevada Secretary of State, Maryland Square filed Articles of Incorporation on September 6,2005. Those Articles do not reference any alleged predecessor entity, any alleged successor status and/or any relation to a "Maryland Square Shopping Center."

73. The Hartford Primary and Umbrella Policies expired on August 1,1984, more than 20 years before Maryland Square was incorporated.

74. In addition, Maryland Square acquired the Property in 2005, more than 20 years after all of the Hartford Primary and Umbrella Policies had expired.

75. Accordingly, a real, substantial and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Hartford on the one hand and Maryland Square on the other hand as to whether Maryland Square is entitled to coverage under the Hartford Primary and Umbrella Policies, which controversy is subject to resolution by this Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order declaring the following relief:
A. That Maryland Square does not qualify as an insured under the Hartford Primary Policies and/or the Hartford Umbrella Policies;
B. That Hartford has no obligation to defend and no obligation to indemnify Maryland Square with respect to the Underlying Actions;
C. Award Hartford its attorneys fees and costs in connection with this suit; and
D. For such other and further relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT III
Claim for Reimbursement Against the Shapiro Defendants
76. Paragraphs 1 through 75 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

77. Hartford agreed to participate in the defense of the Shapiro Defendants with respect to the Underlying Actions, subject to a reservation of rights, including the right to seek reimbursement.

78. Hartford asserts that the Shapiro Defendants were or are not entitled to receive the benefit of Hartford's payments towards the defense of the Underlying Actions.

79. Hartford seeks equitable reimbursement from the Shapiro Defendants for all monies paid by Hartford towards the defense of the Underlying Actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order declaring the following relief:
A. That Hartford is entitled to equitable reimbursement from the Shapiro Defendants for all monies paid by Hartford for the defense of the Underlying Actions;
B. Award Hartford its attorneys fees and costs in connection with this suit; and
C. For such other and further relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT IV
Claim for Reimbursement Against the Trust Defendants

80. Paragraphs 1 through 79 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

81. Hartford agreed to participate in the defense of the Trust Defendants with respect to the Underlying Actions, subject to a reservation of rights, including the right to seek reimbursement.

82. Hartford asserts that the Trust Defendants were or are not entitled to receive the benefit of Hartford's payments towards the defense of the Underlying Actions.

83. Hartford seeks equitable reimbursement from the Trust Defendants for all monies paid by Hartford towards the defense of the Underlying Actions and all indemnification paid by the Trust Defendants to Maryland Square.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order declaring the following relief:

A. That Hartford is entitled to equitable reimbursement from the Trust Defendants for all monies paid by Hartford for the defense of the Underlying Actions;
B. Award Hartford its attorneys fees and costs in connection with this suit; and
C. For such other and further relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT VI
Claim for Reimbursement Against the Other Insurers

84. Paragraphs 1 through 83 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

85. Hartford agreed to participate in the defense of the Shapiro Defendants and the Trust Defendants with respect to the Underlying Actions, subject to a reservation of rights, including the right to seek reimbursement.

86. Hartford seeks reimbursement from the Other Insurers for all past and future monies paid by Hartford for the defense of the Underlying Actions in excess of Hartford's applicable share of the  defense costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order declaring the following relief:

A. That Hartford is entitled to reimbursement from the Other Insurers for all past and future monies paid by Hartford for the defense of the Underlying Actions in excess of Hartford's applicable share;
B. Award Hartford its attorneys fees and costs in connection with this suit; and
C. For such other and further relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT VII
Alternative Claim for Declaratory Relief Against the Other Insurers.  Trust Defendants and Shapiro Defendants

87. Paragraphs 1 through 86 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

88. In the event it is determined that Hartford has an ongoing defense and/or indemnity obligation for the Underlying Actions (which Hartford denies), Hartford seeks a declaration that it is entitled to contribution, reallocation, reimbursement and/or apportionment of defense and/or indemnity paid for the Underlying Actions from the Other Insurers, the Trust Defendants and the Shapiro Defendants.

89. Accordingly, a real, substantial and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Hartford on the one hand and the Other Insurers, the Trust Defendants and the Shapiro Defendants on the other hand, which controversy is subject to resolution by this Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order declaring the following relief:
A. In the event it is determined that Hartford has an ongoing defense and/or indemnity obligation with respect to the Underlying Actions, declaring that Hartford is entitled to contribution, reallocation, reimbursement and/or apportionment from the Other Insurers, the Trust Defendants and the Shapiro Defendants."

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.