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

HIGHRISE CONCRETE SYSTEMS, INC. v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (ACE) 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: 
1:12-cv-00131 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Highrise Concrete Systems, Inc.
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of Texas
Date Filed: 
Jul 6 2012

"IV.
Cause Of Action - Contractual Indemnity

4.01 Highrise Concrete would show that pursuant to the Ace insurance policy and the endorsements therein, Ace had a duty to defend Highrise un the underlying suit as well as pay all settlement funds therein which Ace failed to do. Therefore, Highrise Concrete is entitled to contractual indemnity from this Defendant, pursuant to the terms of the contract with this Defendant as an additional insured under Policy Number HDO G21728706 (Renewal of Prior Policy No. G20305009), effective 10/01/06 to 10/01/07 (hereinafter the "policy") and endorsement #18,

4.02 Plaintiff therefore sues for contractual indemnity. Cause Of Action - Common Law Indemnity

4.03 Highrise Concrete Systems asserts that it is entitled to common law indemnity from Ace and Donco as a proximate result of the damages paid by Highrise in defending the underlying suit and in paying settlement funds.

Cause of Action-Breach of Contract
4.04 All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs liability on the insurance policy attached as Exhibit B have been performed or have occurred.

4.05 The claim for damages for bodily injury and death arising out of the occurrence and made the subject matter of the lawsuit described above was fully and finally settled on by written agreement between the decedent's family and Highrise and by written agreement between decedent's birth father and Highrise. Highrise, and/or its insurers, paid the full and final settlement amounts described in the written agreements. The terms of Policy Number HDO G21728706 (Renewal of Prior Policy No. G20305009), effective 10/01/06 to 10/01/07 (hereinafter the "policy") and endorsement #18 obligated Ace to defend Plaintiff against all civil actions in which claims were asserted against Plaintiff. Those claims asserted were within the coverage provided by the policy. Accordingly, Highrise is entitled to recover from these defendants monetary relief beyond the jurisdictional limits of the court, since it is additional insured under Commercial Metal Company's general liability policy issued by Defendant Ace. Defendant, Ace, has failed and refused to pay despite demands for a defense, ignoring Highrise's request.

Cause of Action-Negligence and Gross Negligence

4.06 Plaintiff contends that Defendant Ace failed to pay for the defense and settlement amount incurred by Highrise as an additional insured, and was negligent in its performance of its duties as an insurer under the Ace policy.

4.07 Plaintiff further contends that if insurance coverage is found not to exist for Highrise that Defendant Donco negligently procured improper insurance and failed to act as a easonably prudent insurance agency under the same or similar circumstances.

4.08 Plaintiff makes claims directly against Defendants Ace and Donco for their own individual negligence and makes claims against Ace for the vicarious liability of Donco's acts or omissions as the actual or apparent agent for Ace.

4.09 Ace and Donco committed gross negligence within the meaning of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.001(11).

Cause of Action-DTPA Violations

4.10 Plaintiff contends that Defendant Ace and Defendant Donco violated Texas Business and Commerce Code sections 17.46(a) and 17.46(b)(24) and sections 17.45(9) and 1745(13), Plaintiff was a consumer within the meaning of Texas Business & Commerce Code Section 17.45(4). Such conduct was a producing and proximate cause of Plaintiffs compensatory damages.

Cause of Action-Insurance Code Violations

4.11 Plaintiff contends that Defendant Ace and Defendant Donco violated Texas Insurance Code sections 541.003, 541.051(1)(A), 541.051(1)(B), 541.061(2), 541.061(3) and 541.061(5). Such conduct was a producing and proximate cause of Plaintiff s compensatory damages.

Joint and Several Liability

4.12 Highrise pleads that Ace American acted jointly, severally and/or in combination with Donco Insurance Company, Inc., Commercial Metals Company and CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc. d/b/a CMC Valley Steel in failing to provide the coverage owed to them."

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.