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

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. MATSON TERMINALS INC 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: 
2:13-cv-08958- Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Central District of California
Date Filed: 
Dec 4 2013

COUNT I - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ARBITRATION
CLAUSE DOES NOT APPLY TO MATSON'S DEMAND
56. INA incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully
set forth in this Count I.
57. INA seeks a declaration from this Court that Matson's Demand against
INA is not within the scope of the Arbitration Clause contained in Endorsement No. 6
of the Excess Policy.
58. The Arbitration Clause is extremely narrow in scope, and only applies to
disputes between INA and Matson regarding the "Annuity Value or Value" of a valid
claim under the Excess Policy.
59. The current dispute is not a dispute about "Annuity Value or Value" of a
claim under the Excess Policy, rather, INA disputes that Matson has asserted a valid
claim under the Excess Policy at all.
60. The narrow Arbitration Clause contained in Endorsement No. 6 of the
Excess Policy does not apply to this dispute.

COUNT II - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE EXCESS POLICY
DOES NOT PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MATSON'S SPECIAL FIND
ASSESSMENT PAYMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
61. INA incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully
set forth in this Count II.
62. INA seeks a declaration from this Court that the Excess Policy does not
provide coverage for Matson's Special Fund Assessment payments.
63. The Excess Policy covers "losses," in the form of "compensation and
other benefits" paid to injured claimants in excess of Matson's $250,000 Retained
Limit and up to the $5,000,000 limits of the Excess Policy.
64. The payments made by Matson to the DOL are not "compensation and
other benefits" owed to a Claimant, but rather are administrative fees that Matson
owes to a governmental agency pursuant to the LHWCA, by virtue of the fact that
Matson is self-insured under the LHWCA. Furthermore, section 8(f) of the LHWCA

limited Matson's liability for post-injury permanent disability payments to 104 weeks
and accordingly Matson had no liability for compensation payments thereafter.
65. Matson obligation to pay the Special Fund Assessments is not as a result
of Matson's adjudicated liability, but rather is the result of the fact that Matson is
subject to Special Fund Assessments as a maritime self-insured employer subject to
the LHWCA. Matson's Special Fund Assessment payments are not amounts that
Matson must pay to a specific employee for a specific injury that occurred during the
effective dates of the Excess Policy, and accordingly, these payments are not covered
by the Excess Policy. See e.g., Nat'l Steel & Shipbuilder Co., 2013 WL 3989194.
66. Alternatively, INA seeks a declaration from this Court that the Demand is
barred by the applicable statute of limitations and/or the Notice Provision of the
Excess Policy.

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.