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

HEXION INC. (F/K/A MOMENTIVE SPECIALTY CHEMICALS INC.) v. ZURICH INSURANCE PLC (UK BRANCH) 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: 
2:15-cv-00623 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Hexion Inc. (f/k/a Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc.)
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of Ohio
Date Filed: 
Feb 13 2015

COMPLAINT

Hexion Inc. (“Hexion”), formerly known as Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc., files
this Complaint against Zurich Insurance plc (UK Branch) (“Zurich”), AIG Europe Limited
(“AIG”), Assicurazioni Generali Spa (UK Branch) (“Assicurazioni”), HDI-Gerling Industrie
Versicherung AG (“HDI”), International Insurance Company of Hannover PLC
(“International”), Scor UK Company Ltd (“Scor”), Swiss Reinsurance Company UK Ltd.
(“Swiss”), Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company (“Allianz”), Aspen Insurance UK Ltd.
(“Aspen”), QBE Insurance Corporation (“QBE”), ACE American Insurance Company on behalf
of Starr Technical Risks Agency, Inc. (“ACE”), Talbot Syndicate #1183 on behalf of Talbot
Underwriting Services (US) Ltd. (“Talbot”), and XL Insurance America, Inc. (“XL”)
(collectively, the “Carriers”) alleging as follows:

NATURE OF THIS ACTION
1.This Complaint requests declaratory relief and asserts breach of contract arising
out of the Carriers’ failure to acknowledge and to honor their contractual duty under an
international all-risk first-party property insurance program to fully reimburse Hexion for its
TM
incurred and ongoing losses arising from the interruption of Hexion’s VeoVamanufacturing
activities at a Netherlands facility (the “VeoVa Plant”) due to property damage that took place to
equipment at that location that was used and contracted for use by Hexion.
2.Hexion’s covered losses include lost business income, increased expenses, and
mitigation costs.
3.Hexion’s losses will exceed $10 million.
4.Hexion’s incurred and future losses are Time Element Losses, and associated
increased costs and expenses, that are covered under an “interlocking” international insurance
program that includes a Master Policy and a Local Policy. Attached hereto as Exhibits A and B
are true and correct copies of Policy No. WB1400879 (the “Master Policy”) and Policy No.
22588 (the “Local Policy”) (collectively the “Policies”).
5.The Policies by their terms are “interlocking,” but to the extent terms and/or
coverage is broader, the terms and coverage of the Master Policy control.
6.Hexion’s incurred and future losses are subject to a $500 million policy limit and
a $1 million deductible.
7.In the alternative, Hexion’s losses are Contingent Time Element Losses in respect
of named suppliers and are subject to a $100 million Master Policy sublimit and a $1 million
deductible.
8.The Carriers have expressed an intent to limit and/or deny coverage by issuing a
reservation of rights letter asserting that: (1) a “corrosion” exclusion in the Master Policy may
bar coverage for Hexion’s losses; and (2) to the extent that the Master Policy provides any
coverage for Hexion’s losses, that coverage is subject to a $10 million sublimit for Contingent
Time Element Losses “in respect of unnamed suppliers.”
9.Hexion seeks a declaration regarding the parties’ rights and obligations under the
insurance program, as well as damages resulting from the Carriers’ breach and/or anticipatory
breach of their coverage obligations.

THE PARTIES
10.Hexion is a global specialty chemical manufacturer incorporated in New Jersey
with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio.
11.Upon information and belief, Defendant Zurich is incorporated in Ireland, and its
UK Branch is registered in England and Wales with its principal place of business located at
3000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire in the United Kingdom.
12.Upon information and belief, Defendant AIG is incorporated in the United
Kingdom with its principal place of business located at 58 Fenchurch St., EC3M 4AB, London in
the United Kingdom
13.Upon information and belief, Defendant Assicurazioni is incorporated in the
United Kingdom with its principal place of business located at 100 Leman St., E1 8AJ, London
in the United Kingdom.
14.Upon information and belief, Defendant HDI is incorporated in Germany with its
principal place of business located at 10 Fenchurch St., EC3M 3BE, London in the United
Kingdom.
15.Upon information and belief, Defendant International is incorporated in the
United Kingdom with its principal place of business located at 10 Fenchurch St., EC3M 3BE,
London in the United Kingdom.
16.Upon information and belief, Defendant Scor is incorporated in the United
Kingdom with its principal place of business located at 10 Lime St., EC3M 3BE, London in the
United Kingdom.
17.Upon information and belief, Defendant Swiss is incorporated in the United
Kingdom with its principal place of business located at 30 St. Mary Axe, EC3A 8EP, London in
the United Kingdom.
18.Upon information and belief, Defendant Allianz is incorporated in California with
its principal place of business located in Burbank, California.
19.Upon information and belief, Defendant Aspen is incorporated in the United
Kingdom with its principal place of business located at 30 Fenchurch St., EC3M 3BD, London in
the United Kingdom.
20.Upon information and belief, Defendant QBE is incorporated in Pennsylvania
with its principal place of business located at 88 Pine St. Wall St. Plaza., 4th Floor, New York,
NY 10005.
21.Upon information and belief, Defendant ACE is incorporated in Pennsylvania
with its principal place of business located at 436 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.
22.Upon information and belief, Defendant Talbot is incorporated in New York with
its principal place of business located at 48 Wall St., Floor 17, New York, NY 10005.
23.Upon information and belief, Defendant XL is incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business located at Seaview House, 70 Seaview Ave., Stamford, CT 06902.
24.As described below, the Carriers issued a first-party property insurance policy to
Hexion.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25.This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is
complete diversity of citizenship between Hexion and the Carriers, which are citizens of different
countries or states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs.
26.The Carriers are subject to personal jurisdiction because they regularly transact
business in Ohio and delivered the Policies at issue to Hexion in Ohio.
27.Additionally, the Master Policy has a “Jurisdiction” clause stating that
“jurisdiction shall be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction as stated in the Service of
Suit Clause, as defined in endorsement No. 5 attached hereto.” Master Policy at 54.
28.Additionally, the Master Policy contains a Service of Suit Clause, Endorsement 5,
which provides that the Carriers agree “at the request of the Insured” to “submit to the
jurisdiction of a Court of competent jurisdiction within the United States.” Master Policy,
Endorsement 5 at 70.
29.Further, the Declarations supplied by and agreed to by the Carriers states: “Choice
of jurisdiction to be determined in court of competent jurisdiction as stated in Service of Suit
Clause in Part II – Supplemental Clauses.” Master Policy, Declarations at 8 (referencing
Endorsement 5).
30.Further, the Master Policy states that “It is further agreed that service of process
in such suit may be made upon Messers Mendes & Mount, 750 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY
10019-6829, United States of America, and that in any suit instituted against any one of [the
Carriers] will abide by the final decision of such Court or of any Appellate Court in the event of
an appeal.” Master Policy, Endorsement 5 at 70.
31.Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Hexion’s
headquarters and principal place of business is in Columbus, Ohio, the sale and delivery of the
Master Policy took place in Columbus, Ohio, and Hexion’s risk management office responsible
for the purchase of the Master Policy and relations with the Carriers regarding the Master Policy
is in Columbus, Ohio.
HEXION’S 2014-2015 ALL-RISK PROPERTY INSURANCE PROGRAM
32.In exchange for substantial premiums, the Carriers sold Hexion all-risk first-party
property insurance coverage for the period of July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2015.
7
Case: 2:15-cv-00623-GLF-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/13/15 Page: 8 of 22  PAGEID #: 8
33.This coverage is in the form of an international insurance program that consists of
the Master Policy, which covers all of its insured locations, and interlocks with, and provides
broad difference in conditions coverage vis-a-vis, one or more “local” policies (“Insurance
Program”).
THE MASTER POLICY
34.The Master Policy applies “worldwide” to cover “All Real and Personal Property”
to which Hexion or its subsidiaries has an insurable interest. Master Policy at 1, 16.
35.Momentive Specialty Chemicals Holdings LLC, now known as Hexion LLC, and
any of its subsidiaries, among other entities, are Named Insureds under the Master Policy.
Master Policy at 1.
36.Hexion is and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Hexion LLC.
37.Hexion B.V., the entity that owns the VeoVa Plant, is a subsidiary of Hexion.
38.The Master Policy insures “Real Property” that is “located at an Insured Location
or within 1,000 feet thereof, to the extent of the interest of the Insured in such property.” Master
Policy at 16.
39.The Master Policy defines “Real Property” to include “new buildings (or
structures), alterations, repairs and additions under construction at an Insured Location, in which
the Insured has an insurable interest.” Master Policy at 16.
40.The Master Policy defines an “Insured Location” as “a location: 1) listed on a
Schedule of Locations attached to this Policy. 2) [sic]covered as a Miscellaneous Unnamed
Location. [or] 3) [sic]covered under the terms and conditions of the Automatic Coverage or
Errors and Omissions provisions.” Master Policy at 14.
41.The Master Policy defines “Location” to mean “(1) As specified in the schedule
of locations, except for Miscellaneous Unnamed Locations; or (2) If not so specified or if a
Miscellaneous Unnamed Location, a building . . . bounded on all sides by public streets, clear
land space, or open waterways, each not less than 50 feet wide.” Master Policy at 14.
42.The Master Policy provides up to $500 million in coverage per occurrence,
subject to a $1 million deductible. Master Policy at 1, 4–5.
43.The Master Policy also includes certain sublimits to coverage.
44.The Master Policy defines “occurrence” as “[a]n event of a continuous exposure
to conditions which cause or result from direct physical loss or damage. All damages resulting
from a common cause, or from exposure to substantially the same conditions, shall be deemed to
result from one occurrence.” Master Policy at 3.
45.The Master Policy provides coverage for Time Element loss “directly resulting
from physical loss or damage of the type insured by” the property damage sections of the Policy
to property (i) “described elsewhere in this Policy and not otherwise excluded by this Policy,”
(ii) “used by the Insured, or for which the Insured has contracted use,” or (iii) “located at an
Insured Location,” during the Policy periods of liability. Master Policy at 36.
46.The Master Policy does not include a sublimit for Time Element losses.
47.The Master Policy defines the Period of Liability for Time Element loss to
buildings and equipment as “the period: a) starting from the time of direct physical loss or
damage of the type insured against; and b) ending when with due diligence and dispatch the
building and equipment could be (i) repaired or replaced; and (ii) made ready for operations,
under the same or equivalent physical and operating conditions that existed prior to the damage,
c) not to be limited by the expiration of this Policy.” Master Policy at 45.
48.The Master Policy extends the Period of Liability to apply “for such additional
length of time as would be required with the exercise of due diligence and dispatch to restore the
Insured’s business to the condition that would have existed had no loss occurred, commencing
with the date on which the liability of the Company for loss resulting from interruption of
business would terminate if this Extension had not been included herein.” Master Policy at 42.
49.The Period of Liability in the Master Policy extends for up to twenty-four (“24”)
months.
50.The Master Policy also “covers expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred by
the Insured to reduce the loss otherwise payable under this section of this Policy. The amount of
such recoverable expenses will not exceed the amount by which the loss has been reduced.”
Master Policy at 36.
51.The Master Policy also covers “the reasonable and necessary extra costs incurred
by the Insured of the following during the PERIOD OF LIABILITY: a) Extra expenses to
temporarily continue as nearly normal as practicable the conduct of the Insured’s business; and
b) Extra costs of temporarily using property or facilities of the Insured or others, less any value
remaining at the end of the PERIOD OF LIABILITY for property obtained in connection with
the above.” Master Policy at 39.
52.The Master Policy also covers “Professional Fees,” including “the actual costs
incurred by [Hexion] of reasonable fees payable” to professionals assisting in producing “such
other proofs, information or evidence” in support of Hexion’s claim. Master Policy at 27–28.
53.In addition to Time Element coverage, the Master Policy provides, as a “Time
Element Coverage Extension,” CONTINGENT TIME ELEMENT coverage, which is defined as
“the Actual Loss sustained and EXTRA EXPENSE incurred by the Insured during the PERIOD
OF LIABILITY: 1) directly resulting from physical loss or damage of the type insured; and 2) to
property of the type insured, at any locations of direct suppliers or customers located within the
TERRITORY of this Policy.” Master Policy at 42.
54.The Master Policy contains a $100 million sublimit for Contingent Time Element
Coverage “in respect of named customers and/or suppliers” and a $10 million sublimit for
Contingent Time Element Coverage “in respect of unnamed customers and/or suppliers.” Master
Policy at 4–5.
55.The terms “named” and “unnamed” are not defined in the Master Policy.
56.The Master Policy excludes from coverage “deterioration, depletion, rust,
corrosion or erosion, wear and tear, inherent vice, latent defect or quality in the property that
causes it to damage or destroy itself, decay or other spoilage, when not sudden and/or
accidental.” Master Policy at 34.
57.The Policy further states that “if direct physical damage not excluded by this
Policy results, then only that resulting damage is insured.” Master Policy at 34.
58.The Master Policy has a “Jurisdiction” clause stating that “jurisdiction shall be
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction as stated in the Service of Suit Clause, as defined
in endorsement No. 5 attached hereto.” Master Policy at 54.
59.The Master Policy contains a Service of Suit Clause, Endorsement 5, which
provides that the Carriers agree “at the request of the Insured” to “submit to the jurisdiction of a
Court of competent jurisdiction within the United States.” Master Policy, Endorsement 5.
60.The Declarations supplied by and agreed to by the Carriers states: “Choice of
jurisdiction to be determined in court of competent jurisdiction as stated in Service of Suit
Clause in Part II – Supplemental Clauses.” Master Policy, Declarations at 8 (referencing
Endorsement 5).
61.The Master Policy states that it “shall only apply to the extent that: a) the Insured
Perils and/or definitions and/or conditions under this Policy are broader in meaning or scope than
those of any Specific Local Primary Policy and/or b) limits of liability set forth herein are
broader in meaning or scope than those of any Specific Local Primary Policy and this Policy
shall only apply to provide excess insurance over any amount collectible from such policies.”
Master Policy, Endorsement 8 at 73.
62.The Master Policy further states:
International Insurance Program Structure
This policy is part of an international insurance program. This program
arrangement is a compilation of different policies, which all have one
common goal: to cover you as agreed in this policy.
Master Policy, Endorsement 9 at 79.

THE LOCAL POLICY
63.The Carriers issued the Local Policy to Hexion, which is a local property
insurance policy applicable to Hexion’s insurable interests in the Netherlands.
64.The Local Policy states that it “is part of an international insurance program,
under which an interlocking master policy and one or more local policies have been issued to the
parent company and to the local companies that belong to its group.” Local Policy at
Declarations Page 1.
65.The Local Policy provides coverage for “thereal interestagainst loss or damage
[to insured property] if and insofar as the loss or damage is the result of an occurrence.” Local
Policy at 7.
66.The Local Policy defines “real interest” as “[t]he insured’s interest in the
preservation of therisk objectson account of ownership or any other real right or his bearing the
risk for the preservation thereof.” Local Policy at 7.
67.The Local Policy defines “risk objects” as “thebuildings, machinery/equipment,
and/orgoodsin thebuildingsat the address(es) specified in the schedule.” Local Policy at 5.
68.The Local Policy further states that “Carriershave knowledge of the location,
construction, lay-out and use of therisk objects, as well as of the adjacent premises, upon
inception of the contract.” Local Policy at 14.

HEXION’S BUSINESS INTERRUPTION AND RESULTING AND ONGOING
ECONOMIC LOSSES
69.Hexion’s VeoVa Plant is located at Chemieweg 25, Moerdijk, Netherlands 4782
SJ.
70.The VeoVa Plant is located at the same address, and is physically attached and
directly adjacent to, a manufacturing facility (“Shell Plant”) owned and operated by Shell
Nederland Chemie (“Shell”).
71.The VeoVa Plant produces a family of vinyl ester monomers known as “VeoVa,”
which principally is used as a monomer in paint production.
72.One of the base raw materials that the VeoVa Plant needs in order to manufacture
VeoVa is acetylene, which Shell produces at the Shell Plant, and which Shell has contracted with
Hexion to supply to the VeoVa Plant.
73.Shell supplies acetylene that is manufactured at the Shell Plant (the VeoVa Plant
and the Shell Plant are collectively referred to as the “Moerdijk Facility”).
74.The VeoVa Plant is physically connected to the Shell Plant through a series of
piping systems at the Moerdijk Facility.
75.Steam produced by the boilers at the Moerdijk Facility is used both by the VeoVa
Plant and the Shell Plant.
76.Equipment to produce and to distribute steam at the Moerdijk Facility is used both
by the VeoVa Plant and the Shell Plant.
77.Hexion owns manufacturing and storage vessels, equipment, piping, electrical
substation and a process control system at the Moerdijk Facility.
78.Shell owns pipes, boilers, and oil refining “cracker” equipment at the Moerdijk
Facility, which are used by Shell in the production and/or supply of acetylene to Hexion.
79.Hexion uses and contracts for the use of the Shell Plant pursuant to a “Site
Services, Utilities, Materials and Facilities Agreement” (“SUMF Agreement”).
80.Under the SUMF Agreement, Hexion purchases from Shell certain site services,
utilities, materials and facilities, including boilers and steam distribution equipment and piping.
81.Further, Hexion uses and contracts for use of the Shell Plant pursuant to an
Operation and Maintenance Services Agreement (“Operation Agreement”).
82.Pursuant to the Operation Agreement, Shell provides Hexion with operation,
maintenance, and direct technical manpower services for operation and maintenance of the
VeoVa Plant.
83.Pursuant to the Operation Agreement, the VeoVa Plant is operated pursuant to
site requirements that apply to the entire Moerdijk Facility.
84.Pursuant to the Operation Agreement, Hexion must acquire the approval of Shell
for any improvement proposed for the VeoVa Plant.
85.Pursuant to the Operation Agreement, Hexion utilizes and pays for the
maintenance of certain equipment at the Shell Plant.
86.Upon information and belief, on October 2, 2014, an incident at the Shell Plant
located within the Moerdijk Facility resulted in property damage to equipment used by Shell in
the production of acetylene and steam.
87.Property damage at the Moerdijk Facility impacted the “cracker,” boilers, piping,
and other equipment necessary for the production of acetylene and steam.
88.Upon information and belief, property damage at the Moerdijk facility was caused
by an extraordinary and unforeseen incident.
89.Property damage causing interruption of Hexion’s business took place to property
at the address of the VeoVa Plant submitted to the Carriers.
90.Property damage at the Moerdijk Facility causing interruption of Hexion’s
business took place to property used and contracted for use by Hexion.
91.Property damage causing interruption of Hexion’s business took place to property
within 1,000 feet of Hexion property.
92.Upon information and belief, the Carriers knew or should have known that Shell
was a supplier to Hexion.
93.Hexion had an insurable interest in the damaged property that caused an
interruption to its business.
94.As a direct result of the property damage incident, Shell was unable to produce
any acetylene or steam from its damaged Facility.
95.On October 2, 2014, Shell declared force majeure under its contracts with Hexion.
96.Shell has not supplied the Facility with any acetylene or steam as of October 2,
2014, and upon information and belief the damaged facilities at the Shell Plant will not be able to
resume manufacturing acetylene or steam for an extended period of time.
97.These events have interrupted, and continue to interrupt, the VeoVa Plant’s
operations and have caused Hexion to suffer loss.
98.As a direct result of the October 2, 2014 incident and resulting property damage at
the Moerdijk Facility, and based on information presently available to Hexion, Hexion’s covered
losses will exceed $10 million.

HEXION’S TIMELY SUBMISSION OF ITS INSURANCE CLAIM
AND THE CARRIERS’ RESPONSE
99.On or around October 6, 2014, the Carriers were notified of the October 2, 2014
property damage event at the Moerdijk Facility, and of the resulting interruption of its operations
at the VeoVa Plant.
16
Case: 2:15-cv-00623-GLF-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/13/15 Page: 17 of 22  PAGEID #: 17
100.During the months following Hexion’s submission of notice to the Carriers,
Hexion has been corresponding with the Carriers regarding the claim and has been providing the
Carriers with documents and information that they have requested in connection with their claim
investigation and adjustment activities.
101.On or around January 8, 2015, Zurich sent a letter to Hexion stating that the
Carriers “are in the early stages of investigating the claim,” and purported to reserve its rights
with respect to the following coverage defenses:
“- The Zurich Netherlands policies only cover [Hexion’s] property and do not provide
Contingent Time Element coverage.
- Any loss caused by corrosion shall be excluded. This may be of relevance when the
cause investigation is complete.
- The Contingent Time Element coverage in [the Master Policy] for unnamed suppliers
has a USD$10,000,000 sublimit.”
102.In an email dated February 3, 2015, the Carriers further asserted that the parties’
dispute is governed by English law and is subject to the jurisdiction in a court of England and
Wales.
103.To the extent not waived or otherwise excused by the acts and conduct of Zurich,
or by operation of law, Hexion has complied with all terms and conditions precedent in the
Policies, and accordingly is entitled to all benefits of the Policies.

COUNT I
(Declaratory Judgment on the Carriers’ Obligations Under the Insurance Program)
104.Hexion incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
105.The Carriers owe a duty to reimburse Hexion for its incurred and ongoing losses
and expenses, including but not limited to “Time Element Loss,” increased expenses, and
mitigation costs, arising from the interruption of its manufacturing activities at the Facility
caused by the October 2, 2014 property damage incident at the Moerdijk Facility under the
Insurance Program’s Time Element Coverage and related coverages.
106.Alternatively, the Carriers owe a duty to reimburse Hexion for its incurred and
ongoing losses and expenses, including but not limited to “Time Element Loss,” and associated
costs and expenses, arising from the interruption of its manufacturing activities at the Facility
caused by the October 2, 2014 property damage incident at the Moerdijk Facility under the
Master Policy’s Contingent Time Element Coverage subject to the Master Policy’s $100 million
sublimit for named suppliers.
107.The Carriers’ invocation of inapplicable language in the Master Policy that would
operate to eliminate or otherwise limit Hexion’s claim constitutes an express intention to
materially breach their duties and obligations under the Insurance Program.
108.In light of the above, there exists an “actual controversy” between the parties
appropriate for the entry of a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, in Hexion’s
favor.
109.Hexion is entitled to a declaration that the Carriers owe a duty to reimburse
Hexion for its incurred and ongoing lost business income, increased expenses, mitigation costs,
and other covered loss arising from the interruption of its manufacturing activities at the Facility
caused by the October 2, 2014 property damage incident at the Moerdijk Facility under the
Insurance Program’s Time Element Coverage and terms.
110.Alternatively, Hexion is entitled to a declaration that the Carriers owe a duty to
reimburse Hexion for its incurred and ongoing lost business income, increased expenses,
mitigation costs, and other covered loss under the Master Policy’s Contingent Time Element
Coverage subject to the Master Policy’s $100 million sublimit for named suppliers, and other
terms.

COUNT II
(Anticipatory Breach)
111.Hexion incorporate herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
112.Hexion has complied with all applicable conditions precedent contained in the
Insurance Program.
113.Additionally, none of the exclusions in the Insurance Program preclude coverage
for Hexion’s claim.
114.The Carriers have a duty to reimburse Hexion for its incurred and ongoing lost
business income, increased expenses, mitigation costs and other covered loss arising from the
interruption of its manufacturing activities at the Facility caused by the October 2, 2014 property
damage incident at the Moerdijk Facility because the loss is encompassed by the Insurance
Program’s Time Element Coverage and other terms.
115.Alternatively, the Carriers have a duty to reimburse Hexion for its incurred and
ongoing lost business income, increased expenses, mitigation costs and other covered loss arising
from the interruption of its manufacturing activities at the Facility caused by the October 2, 2014
property damage incident at the Moerdijk Facility because the loss is encompassed by the Master
Policy’s Contingent Time Element Coverage and subject to the Master Policy’s $100 million
sublimit for named suppliers and other terms.
116.By invoking inapplicable language in the Master Policy that would operate to
eliminate or otherwise limit Hexion’s claim, the Carriers have expressed their intention to
materially breach their obligations under the Insurance Program regarding their duty to
reimburse Hexion for its incurred and ongoing lost business income, increased expenses, and
mitigation costs arising from the interruption of its manufacturing activities at the Facility caused
by the October 2, 2014 property damage incident at the Moerdijk Facility.
117.As a direct and proximate result of the Carriers’ breach, the Carriers have
deprived Hexion of the benefit of the Insurance Program for which Hexion has paid a substantial
premium.
118.Hexion has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest and
appropriate damages.
119.As set forth above, this amount will exceed $10 million.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Hexion respectfully seeks the following:
A.That the Court enter judgment in favor of Hexion on all causes of action;
B.On all causes of action, an award of damages in Hexion’s favor in an
amount to be determined at trial;
C.On Hexion’s First Cause of Action, a declaration that the Carriers are
under a duty to reimburse Hexion for its incurred and ongoing Time
Element loss and related loss and expenses, or alternatively its incurred
and ongoing Contingent Time Element loss in respect of named suppliers,
arising from the interruption of its manufacturing activities at the Facility
caused by the October 2, 2014 property damage incident at the Moerdijk
Facility in amounts to be determined by this Court;
D.On all claims for relief, an award of Hexion’s reasonable attorneys’ fees;
E.On all claims for relief, an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action;
F.On all claims for relief, for such other, further and different relief as this
Court deems just and proper; and
G.That this case be tried by a jury.

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.