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


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 or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
2:12-cv-01321 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Houston Casualty Company
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
District of Nevada
Date Filed: 
Jul 26 2012

(For Equitable Contribution)

12. Houston Casualty repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 11 of this Complaint.

13. Houston Casualty and Illinois Union provide co-primary coverage for Baird under their respective policies, and each insurer had a duty to defend and
indemnify Baird in connection with the LV Peter Action. All conditions precedent to coverage under the Illinois Union Policy have been met. Accordingly, Illinois Union was required to contribute equitably with Houston Casualty for the defense and settlement of the LV Peter Action. Due to, among other things, the Illinois Union policy’s significantly higher Limit of Liability ($3 million vs. $1 million), equitable principles dictate that Illinois Union should have contributed at least 75% of the total costs of Baird’s defense and indemnity.

14. Despite is co-obligation to defend and indemnify Baird, Illinois Union refused to contribute to Baird’s defense in the LV Peter Action, and refused to contribute more than $150,000 to the settlement of the LV Peter Action on behalf of Baird. Houston Casualty, in order to protect its interests and the interests of the insurers’ mutual insured, provided Baird with a defense and funded $435,000 of the $585,000 payment made to settle the LV Peter Action on behalf of Baird.

15. Houston Casualty has paid more toward Baird’s defense and settlement in the LV Peter Action than is equitable, while Illinois Union has paid less toward Baird’s defense and settlement in the LV Peter Action than equity and justice demands. Under the terms of the Illinois Union Policy and applicable law, Illinois Union has an obligation to reimburse Houston Casualty for the amount that it should have paid toward Baird’s defense and settlement.

16. Based on the foregoing, Houston Casualty is entitled to a judgment awarding to Houston Casualty that portion of the settlement and defense expenses paid by Houston Casualty for which Illinois Union is liable as a matter of equity, plus interest thereon."

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.