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

ITT CORPORATION v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 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-01589 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
ITT Corporation
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Date Filed: 
Mar 26 2013

"Count I: Breach of Contract

27. ITT incorporates all the foregoing averments by reference as if each were set forth fully herein.

28. The settlement of the Underlying Litigation was reasonable and the ACE Defendants were required to pay a portion of that settlement under the ACE Policies for damages due to “bodily injury.”

29. The ACE Defendants breached the ACE Policies by unreasonably refusing to consent to the settlement of the Underlying Litigation.

30. The ACE Defendants conduct in refusing to consent to the settlement of the Underlying Litigation was without excuse or justification.

31. As a direct and proximate result of the ACE Defendants breach, ITT has suffered and continues to suffer damages in excess of $75,000.

Count II: §8371 Claim

32. ITT incorporates all the foregoing averments by reference as if each were set forth fully herein.

33. Under the ACE Policies, the ACE Defendants had a fiduciary duty to act in good faith, including in their fair dealing in the handling of claims brought against their insured, ITT.

34. The ACE Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they had no reasonable basis to withhold consent to the settlement of the Underlying Litigation, thereby exposing ITT to substantial risk and breaching the ACE Policies.

35. As a result of its unreasonable refusal to consent to the settlement of the Underlying Litigation, the ACE Defendants have violated 42 Pa. Const. Stat. Ann. §8371, giving rise to damages under 42 Pa. Const. Stat. Ann. §8371, having:
a. refused settlement of the Underlying Litigation that the ACE Defendants were required to pay under the ACE Policies for damages due to “bodily injury” covered by the terms of the insurance agreements;
b. refused settlement of the Underlying Litigation in an amount proposed by a neutral mediator at a mediation that the ACE Defendants had consented to, attended, and participated in;
c. acted recklessly in rejecting the settlement after ITT contributed more than one-third of the settlement with its own money;
d. acted recklessly in rejecting and refusing to listen to the recommendation of defense counsel to ITT in the Underlying Litigation that the ACE Defendants should agreed to and accept the reasonable settlement;
e. acted recklessly in rejecting and refusing to discuss the basis for rejecting the settlement in the Underlying Litigation that was only $500,000 above the amount that the ACE Defendants agreed to contribute;
f. acted recklessly in rejecting and refusing to discuss the settlement in the Underlying Litigation that was millions of dollars less than the $15,000,000 that counsel for ITT in the Underlying Action reasonably believed plaintiff could substantiate in damages, which would have drastically increased ITT’s exposure;
g. failed to communicate to ITT a reasonable basis for rejecting the settlement when ITT attempted to continue the discussion with after the mediation;
h. compelled ITT to institute this litigation to recover amounts due under the"

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.