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

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. COMPANIA SUD AMERICA DE VAPORES, S.A.

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-01717 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Mar 8 2012

"COUNT ONE
(Declaratory Judgment Against Westport)

40. OMG reincorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 39 above as if fully rewritten herein.

41. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, when there is an actual controversy, this Court may declare the rights and other legal relations between the parties and that declaration has the force and effect of a final judgment.

42. Employers Re Policy U-3993 expressly covers "all sums which the Insured shall be obligated to pay" by reason of either a legal obligation or assumption of a contractual obligation, including property damage. See Exhibit A at 1, ^fl.

43. Employers Re Policies U-3993-71 and U-3993-74 cover "such ultimate net loss in excess of the Insured's primary limit as the Insured sustains by reason of liability, imposed upon the Insured by law or assumed by the Insured under contract, for damages because of personal injury or property damage to which this policy applies...." See Exhibits B and C at 1 §1.

44. OMG performed extensive remediation at the Site that was legally required under ISRA and incurred costs within the policy limits of the Employers Re Policies in remediating the property damage.

45. Under the terms of the Employers Re Policies, Westport is contractually obligated to indemnify OMG for the costs it has incurred remediating the property damage at the Site.

46. Despite repeated requests, Westport has not paid the amounts it owes to OMG under the Employers Re Policies.

47. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201, this Court has the authority to declare that Westport is obligated to provide insurance coverage to OMG under the Employers Re Policies in connection with property damage sustained at the Site. OMG seeks a declaration from this Court that Westport is obligated to indemnify OMG for the costs it has incurred remediating the property damage at the Site, and all future costs OMG will incur remediating the property damage at the Site.

COUNT TWO
(Declaratory Judgment Against Ace)

48. OMG reincorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 47 above as if fully rewritten herein.

49. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, when there is an actual controversy, this Court may declare the rights and other legal relations between the parties and that declaration has the force and effect of a final judgment.

50. Aetna Policy CG 90-42-19 expressly covers "all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of (A) bodily injury or (B) property damage." See Exhibit D at §1. Upon information and belief, all of the Aetna Policies provide substantially that same scope of coverage.

51. OMG performed extensive remediation at the Site that was legally required under ISRA and incurred costs within the policy limits of Aetna's Policies in remediating the property damage.

52. Under the terms of the Aetna Policies, Ace is contractually obligated to indemnify OMG for the costs it has incurred by remediating the property damage at the Site.

53. Despite repeated requests, Ace has not paid the amounts it owes to OMG under the Aetna Policies.

54. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201, this Court has the authority to declare that Ace is obligated to provide insurance coverage to OMG under the Aetna Policies in connection with property damage sustained at the Site. OMG seeks a declaration from this Court that Ace is obligated to indemnify OMG for the costs it has incurred by remediating the property damage at the Site, and all future costs OMG will incur remediating the property damage at the Site.

COUNT THREE
(Bad Faith Claim Against Ace)

55. OMG reincorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 54 above as if fully rewritten herein.

56. Insurers have a duty to exercise good faith in processing an insured's claim. Unreasonable delay in processing a valid claim, when the insurance carrier knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the delay is unreasonable, constitutes bad faith on the part of the insurance carrier.

57. OMG has provided Ace with documentation of the property damage at the Site which demonstrates that OMG's claims are covered costs under the Aetna Policies.

58. For over three years, OMG has repeatedly contacted Ace and requested a coverage position and attempted to secure payment under the Aetna Policies.

59. During that time, Ace has failed to provide any substantive response to OMG's claim.

60. For substantial periods of time Ace did not respond to OMG at all. Ace was inattentive and demonstrated indifference to OMG's claim.

61. Ace failed to act in good faith and deal fairly with OMG. Without reasonable justification, Ace has unreasonably delayed the processing and/or payment of OMG's claim. Ace knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the delay is unreasonable."

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.