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

HAVILAND 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: 
3:11-cv-01604 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Paul Haviland
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Connecticut District Court
Date Filed: 
Oct 18 2011

"COUNT I - Declaratory Judgment

26. The Havilands repeat and restate the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set forth herein.

27. Defendants have a duty to reimburse the Havilands for the costs incurred and claims made in connection with the collapse of the Patio and Patio Wall.

28. The Insurance Policies apply to the claims of the Havilands. The collapse of the Patio and Patio Wall resulted in "property damage" due to a "collapse" within the policy period under the Insurance Polices and Defendants are obligated to reimburse the Havilands for the cost to remove and repair/rebuild the Patio and Patio Wall.

COUNT II- Breach of Contract

29. The Havilands repeat and restate the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 28 as if fully set forth herein.

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

31. The damage to the Patio and Patio Wall is a covered loss as stated within the Insurance Policies.

32. The Havilands have complied with all conditions precedent to coverage and payment as contained with the Insurance Policies.

33. Defendants have refused to compensate the Havilands under the Insurance Policies and have, therefore, breached its contract.

34. As a direct and proximate result of the breached duties and subsequent denial of coverage by Defendants, the Havilands have incurred damages.

35. As a direct result of Defendants' actions, the Havilands have incurred damages, including, amongst other damages, the attorney's fees incurred in commencing this action.

COUNT III - VIOLATIONS OF CUTPA AND CUIPA

36. The Havilands repeat and restate the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein.

37. Defendants are in a business or trade that affects commence.

38. Upon information and belief, Defendants conduct in: (i) accepting the premiums of the Havilands; (ii) issuing the Insurance Polices which policies contain provisions for coverage for a "collapse"; (iii) failing to secure the Subject Property relative to the collapsed Patio and Patio Wall; and (iv) denying coverage, constitute unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trades and/or commerce.

39. By the aforesaid conduct, Defendants neglected and/or refused to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Havilands and said neglect and/or refusal was not prompted by an honest mistake as to its rights and duties but by its own self-interest.

40. The aforesaid conduct also constitutes a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), §§ 42-110a et seq. and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act ("CUIPA"), §§ 38a-815 et seq. in that its actions were immoral, oppressive or unscrupulous and caused substantial injury and ascertainable losses to the Havilands, including but not limited to, attorneys' fees and costs.

41. By reason of the foregoing, the insured seeks a declaration that Defendant has committed bad faith."

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.