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

ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY v. OVERTON

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: 
1:11-cv-00116 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Illinois Union Insurance Company
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of Georgia
Date Filed: 
Aug 4 2011

"COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE AGAINST B & K PAINTING

41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 37 of this complaint as if fully set forth at length herein.

42. B & K Painting owed Mr. and Mrs. Veazey a duty to use reasonablecare in staining and otherwise working in the house so as to avoid subjecting Mr. and Mrs. Veazey and their property to an unreasonable risk of harm.

43. B & K Painting breached its duty of care by engaging in careless and negligent conduct which included, without limitation, one or more of the following negligent acts of commission and/or omission: A Failing to use reasonable care in discarding and/or disposing of the stain-soaked rags and cotton drop cloths in the “bonus” room of Mr. and Mrs. Veazey’s home, when B & K Painting knew or should have known that such stain-soaked materials were prone to self-heating and spontaneous combustion if not discarded in a safe manner, such as in a closed metal container or a closed container filled with water;

B. Failing to properly ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Veazey’ s home was free of fire hazard before leaving the home on the day of the fire;
C. Failing to properly train and educate its employees about the dangers of self-heating and spontaneous ignition posed by the improper disposal of stain-soaked rags/materials;
D. Failing to properly supervise its employees in performing the staining work in Mr. and Mrs. Veazey’ s home; Failing to perform their work in a safe, skillful, careful, and good and
workmanlike manner;
E Failing to warn Mr. and Mrs. Veazey about the danger and fire hazard posed by the improperly discarded stain-soaked rags/materials;
G. Other negligent acts and/ or omissions as discovery may reveal.

44. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of B & K Painting’s breach of duty and negligence, Illinois Union and its insureds suffered damages in excess of $522,912.00, the reasonable exact amount of which will be proven at trial.

 

COUNT II – PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST B & K PAINTING
FOR WILLFUL, WANTON, AND CONSCIOUS INDIFFERENCE TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS ACTIONS

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 37 of this complaint as if fully set forth at length herein.

46. B & K Painting is purportedly an experienced professional painting and staining contractor who knows how stain-soaked rags and other stain-soaked materials should be properly and safely discarded, particularly given the types of warnings manufacturers place on their stain products.

47. By deliberately discarding the stain-soaked rags and cotton drop cloths in an unsafe, dangerous, and improper manner, there is clear and convincing evidence to show that B & K Painting acted willfully, wantonly, and with an entire want of care raising a presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences of its actions.

48. As a direct and proximate result of B & K Painting’s willful misconduct, wantonness, and entire want of care, plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from B & K Painting pursuant to O.G.C.A. § 51-12-5. 1(b).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that it receive an award of punitive damages from B & K Painting, including their compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $522,912.00, plus interest, the costs of this action, and any and all further relief which this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances

 

COUNT III– ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
AGAINST B & K PAINTING

49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 37 of this complaint as if fully set forth at length herein.

50. B & K Painting has acted in bad faith, has been stubbornly litigious and has caused plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense, because it has refused to settle this case where all the evidence clearly shows that B & K Painting is liable for the fire and all resulting damages suffered by plaintiff and its insureds.

51. B & K Painting has further acted in bad faith and has been stubbornly litigious by failing to provide plaintiff with any evidence to show that it is not liable for the fire and resulting damages.

52. Such bad faith, stubborn litigiousness, and wrongful acts in causing plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense entitles plaintiff to recover under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 its litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action. Plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s hourly fees are $450.00 per hour.

53. As a direct and proximate result of B & K Painting’s bad faith, stubborn litigiousness, and wrongful acts in causing plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense, plaintiff is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses from B & K Painting pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11."

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.