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

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. SANDSTONE NORTH LLC 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: 
3:14-cv-03040 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Central District of Illinois
Date Filed: 
Feb 4 2014

THE UNA POLICIES

13. IINA issued its policy of insurance numbered FO-167573 to South as named
insured. The policy provided for Farmowners Liability Insurance, including Commercial
General Liability Insurance, on a primary basis, for the effective period of November 12,
2008 to November 12, 2009. A certified true and correct copy of the policy is attached
hereto, made a part hereof and is marked as Pleading Exhibit A.
14. UNA issued its policy of insurance numbered FO-167543 to North as named
insured. The policy provided for Farmowners Liability Insurance, including Commercial
General Liability Insurance, on a primary basis, for the effective period of November 12,
2008 to November 12, 2009. A certified true and correct copy of the policy is attached
hereto, made a part hereof and is marked as Pleading Exhibit B.

THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION

15. The underlying plaintiffs have filed an action for damages against North and
Hollis in the Circuit Court of the 7th Judicial Circuit, Scott County, Illinois, under Cause No.
10 L 3. A true and correct copy of the Second Amended Complaint is attached hereto, made
a part hereof and is marked as Pleading Exhibit C.
16. The underlying plaintiffs seek damages from North and Hollis for bodily injury
and other claims in connection with their operation of "swine factories" or confined animal
feeding operations, involving approximately 7,500 hogs, on property adjacent to or in
proximity with property owned by the underlying plaintiffs, who allege, among other things,
that the Defendants herein intentionally disregarded their duties in connection with the proper
handling and storage of animal waste and the maintenance of lagoons for hog urine, feces,
afterbirth remnants, as well as other hazardous substances and materials, as well as the
disposal of millions of gallons of hog waste generated each year, as well as the leakage,
spillage, discharge and release of swine waste, the spreading of hog waste, the disposal of
dead hogs and the accumulation of dead animal carcasses without proper and timely disposal,
all of which more fully appears in Pleading Exhibit C attached hereto.

TENDER OF DEFENSE

17. North and Hollis have made a demand on UNA to provide them with a defense
for the action filed by the underlying plaintiffs. UNA initially accepted that tender subject to
reservation and filed a declaratoryjudgment action in this court on September 16, 2010 under
Cause No. IOC 3236.
18. North, South and their members withdrew their tender of defense and as a
result the initial action was rendered moot and was dismissed on November 19,2010.
19. More than 3 years after the withdrawal of the initial tender, North and its
members placed UNA on notice of the action and its status, namely, a letter of December 10,
2013 advised of a mediation on December 11,2013 and a jury trial on January 6,2014.

COUNTI
(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: No DUTY DEFEND
NORTH AND HOLLIS)

20. UNA adopts and repeats the allegations of *^ 1 through 19 as and for ^f 20
hereof as though the same were fully set forth herein.
21. While the UNA policies, Pleading Exhibits A and B, extend coverage for
"bodily injury" or "property damage" as defined therein, the claims in the underlying action
by the underlying plaintiffs do not involve "bodily injury" or "property damage" as those
terms are defined.
22. While the UNA policies, Pleading Exhibits A and B, extend coverage for
"personal and advertising injury" as defined therein, the claims in the underlying action by
the underlying plaintiffs do not involve "personal and advertising injury" as those terms are
defined.
23. UNA contends that North and Hollis are not entitled to any coverage under the
policies because of one or more or all of the following reasons:
(a) The Second Amended Complaint does not seek damages
because of covered "bodily injury" as defined;
(b) The Second Amended Complaint does not seek damages
because of covered "property damage" as defined;
(c) The Second Amended Complaint does not seek damages
because of covered "personal and advertising injury" to which
the policies apply;
(d) The Second Amended Complaint does not involve an
"occurrence," that is, accidental conduct but only intentional and
non-accidental conduct causing alleged damages and losses;
(e) That if the Second Amended Complaint alleges "bodily injury,"
"property damage," or "personal and advertising injury," then
each and all of such claims are excluded by the pollution
exclusion or one or more other exclusions in the policies;
(f) North and its members breached the notice condition of the
policies by notice given on December 10, 2013 of an action on
file more than 3 years and less than one month prior to trial.
24. The above contentions of UNA are, on information and belief, denied by North
and Hollis who, in turn, contend that they are entitled to coverage under the UNA policies
of insurance. IINA, in turn, denies the contrary contentions of North and Hollis and each of
them.
25. 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.

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.