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

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. GATEWAY SAFETY, INC. D/B/A GATEWAY SAFETY PRODUCTS 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: 
4:13-cv-02682 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of Texas
Date Filed: 
Sep 12 2013

"Because Gateway is not an additional insured, and because, even if Gateway qualified as an additional insured, the pollution exclusion and efficacy clause would preclude coverage, INCA requests the Court to enter a declaratory judgment establishing that ICNA has no duty to defend Gateway.

For the same reasons INCA has no duty to defend, ICNA likewise has no duty to indemnify, as even if all of the underlying plaintiffs’ allegations are deemed to be true, none of them would bestow additional insured status on Gateway or make the pollution exclusion or efficacy clause inapplicable. Accordingly, ICNA also requests the Court to enter a declaratory judgment establishing that ICNA has no duty to indemnify Gateway or to pay any judgment or settlement on Gateway’s behalf to Ublester Rodriguez and Marisela Rodriguez."

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.