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


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 or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
7:13-cv-05239 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Lake Plaza Shopping Center LLC
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Southern District of New York
Date Filed: 
Jul 26 2013

67. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 -66 of this Complaint as if fully set forth lerein.

68. Upon information and belief, Aon's failure to disclose in the Certificates that the J ;w Policies contained a $5,000,000 deductible, named as additional insureds the owners of numinous other store locations, contained an aggregate annual coverage limit of 5,000,000 and did not c ligate ACE to defend and indemnify against claims, was likely to mislead Lake Plaza and anyone else reviewing the certificate as to the true configuration of the Retailer's risk management program.

69. Upon information and belief, the issuance by Aon of Certificates failing to disci se the matters identified in paragraph 46 of this Complaint, has a broad impact on consumers at large >ecause the deceptive certificates expose consumers injured in stores operated by the Retailer to ha ing only uninsured claims against a potentially insolvent company.

70. Upon information and belief, complete disclosure of the true nature and limit ions of the risk management program would have resulted in the enforcement by recipients of thos< leceptive Certificates of contractual obligations that required the Retailer to procure insurance from licensed insurance carriers in amounts sufficient to ensure that meaningful amounts of coverage woul be available to indemnify injured parties and assure there would be a paid for defense.

71. Upon information and belief: (i) the possibility that injured customers may be left only with unsecured claims in bankruptcy is one of the reasons why property owners require Iheir tenar 5 to carry insurance; and, and (ii) the assurance of a paid for defense another.

72. The risk presented to customers by self-insurance is illustrated by what transpired in several well-publicized bankruptcies such as the bankruptcies of General Motors, The Grea Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company and Kmart Corporation in which, upon information and belie injured third parties were relegated to unsecured claims and recoveries that were pennies on the d liar when, had there been insurance, those third parties would have received full recoveries.

73. Upon information and belief, the Retailer is sued for personal injuries hundreds upon hundreds of times each year and settles numerous other claims prior to litigation.

74. Upon information and belief, if the Retailer were to tender these claims to ACE he aggregate coverage limit would be quickly exhausted and the additional insureds would have 3 right to be defended by ACE.

75. Upon information and belief, the availability of a defense is a principal reason why commercial general liability insurance is required by contracts.


76. Lake Plaza repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 to 66 of this Complaint as if fully et forth herein.

77. Upon information and belief, ACE knew that a central issue to be determined in this Action was whether the New Policies changed the substance of the Old Policies insofar as selfinsui ace was concerned.

7 8. Upon information and belief, ACE also knew that the Retailer had or intended to re] esent to the State Court that the New Policies did change the substance of the Old Policies and that i a consequence of such change the Retailer had corrected the lease default that was caused by the C d Policies.

79. Upon information and belief, ACE understood that the New Policies did not make any change in the substance of the Old Policies insofar as self-insurance was concerned and that ly representations made by the Retailer to the State Court that self-insurance had been eliminated would be false and designed to defraud the State Court into reaching an erroneous conclusion.

80. Upon information and belief, and in an effort to aid and abet the Retailer in taking a false and fraudulent position in the State Court, ACE asserted the alleged privilege for the sole purpose of preventing Lake Plaza from obtaining a copy of the Email because the Email would expo z the fraud that was being committed on the Court.

81. In fact, the State Court relied upon the representations constituting the fraud beca se the State Court found, preliminarily, that at least on the face of the New Policies, selfinsui nee had been eliminated.

82. Upon information and belief, the Email contains information that would have led ti J State Court to conclude, preliminarily at least, that the Retailer continued to be self-insured.

83. Upon information and belief, ACE aided and abetted the Retailer in conduct that: suited in a perversion of the judicial process.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment: (a) on the first count, against Aon in an amount no less than $75,000.00, plus inter stand costs;"

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.