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

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. BRADSHAW 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: 
3:13-cv-03065 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Central District of Illinois
Date Filed: 
Mar 7 2013

"COUNT I
(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: NO DUTY DEFEND BRIAN AND MARNI)

13. IINA adopts and repeats the allegations of ¶¶ 1 through 11 as and for ¶ 13 hereof as though the same were fully set forth herein.

14. While the IINA policy, Pleading Exhibit A, extends coverage for “bodily injury” or “property damage” as defined therein, the claims in the underlying action by the underlying plaintiff do not involve “bodily injury” or “property damage” as those terms are defined.

15. While the IINA policy, Pleading Exhibit A, extends coverage for “personal and advertising injury” as defined therein, the claims in the underlying action by the underlying plaintiff do not involve “personal and advertising injury” as those terms are defined.

16. IINA contends that Brian and Marni are not entitled to any coverage under the policy because of one or more or all of the following reasons:
(a) The Complaint does not seek damages because of covered “bodily injury” as defined;
(b) The Complaint does not seek damages because of covered “personal and advertising injury” to which the policy applies;
(c) The Complaint alleges an occurrence at a location owned by Brian and Marni but not scheduled on the policy, hence by Exclusion l. there is no coverage as the accident did not occur on an “insured location;”
(d) The location of the February 7, 2011 accident was added to the policy as a covered location on March 4, 2011 when requested by Brian and Marni.

17. The above contentions of IINA are, on information and belief, denied by Brian and Marni who, in turn, contend that they are entitled to coverage under the IINA policy of insurance. IINA, in turn, denies the contrary contentions of Brian and Marni and each of them.

18. By reason of the foregoing, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties and each of them, which may be determined by a judgment or order of this Court.  Pursuant to the terms and provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, this Court has the power to declare and adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the parties hereto under the terms and provisions of the policy of insurance referred to herein, and to adjudicate the final rights of all parties and to give such other and further relief as may be necessary to enforce the same.

COUNT II
(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: NO DUTY TO DEFEND LIQUID)

19. IINA adopts and repeats the allegations of ¶¶ 1 through 12 as and for ¶ 19 hereof as though the same were fully set forth herein.

20. While the IINA policy, Pleading Exhibit B, extends coverage for “bodily injury” or “property damage” as defined therein, the claims in the underlying action by the underlying plaintiff do not involve “bodily injury” or “property damage” as those terms are defined.

21. IINA contends that Liquid is not entitled to any coverage under the policy because of all of the reasons stated in ¶16 which IINA incorporates by reference and for the reason that Liquid is not an insured under policy FO-173883 by definition or endorsement.

22. The above contentions of IINA are, on information and belief, denied by Liquid which, in turn, contends that it is entitled to coverage under the IINA policy of insurance. IINA in turn, denies the contrary contentions of Liquid and each of them.

23. By reason of the foregoing, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties and each of them, which may be determined by a judgment or order of this Court.  Pursuant to the terms and provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, this Court has the power to declare and adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the parties hereto under the terms and provisions of the policy of insurance referred to herein, and to adjudicate the final rights of all parties and to give such other and further relief as may be necessary to enforce the same.

COUNT III
(REIMBURSEMENT OF DEFENSE COSTS)

24. IINA adopts and repeats the allegations of ¶¶ 1 through 18 as and for ¶ 24 hereof as though the same were fully set forth herein.

25. For the foregoing reasons, IINA owes no defense to Brian and Marni (collectively “the Insureds”) for the action brought by the underlying plaintiff.

26. IINA is defending the Insureds pursuant to a reservation of rights.

27. In its reservation of rights letter, IINA advised the Insureds that IINA specifically reserved its right to seek reimbursement of all defense costs and expenses, including attorneys fees, paid on behalf of the Insureds with respect to the litigation brought by the underlying plaintiff, pursuant to the endorsement to the policy which permits reimbursement of defense costs.

28. In the event that IINA has no duty to defend the Insureds, then IINA is entitled to reimbursement from the Insureds of the defense costs and attorneys fees and other costs incurred on their behalf by IINA in order to avoid an unjust enrichment and pursuant to their contractual agreement."

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.