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: 
2:12-cv-01887 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Quality Oilfield L L C
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Western District of Louisiana
Date Filed: 
Jul 12 2012

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel. come Petitioners, LA OILFIELD
SERVICES, £NC. (hereinafter "LA OILFIELD"), a Louisiana corporation domiciled in
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and QUALITY OILFIELD, LL.C. (hereinafter "QUALITY"), a

Louisiana limited liability company domiciled in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, who with respect
represent the following:

1. Made Defendant herein is:
(a) INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA (hereinafter "INDEMNITY"), a foreign insurance company, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, authorized and licensed to do and doing business in the State of Louisiana, and which may be served through the Louisiana Secretary of State, 8585 Archives Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809.

2. Venvue is proper in the Thirty-Eight Judicial District Court pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 76. This is an action against a property insurance carrier and the loss occurred in !Cameron Parish, Louisiana.

3. Petitioner purchased a Policy from Defendant, INDEMNITY. The Policy was in effect on June 21,20] O. The policy issued was numbered N0492S179001, insuring the vessel, the MIV Emerald Express property (hereinafter "the covered property")_ The vessel was insured in the name of both LA OILFIELD and QUALITY.

4.Defendant placed a valuation upon the covered property and used this valuation for purposes of determining the premium charge to be made under the policy.

5. The policy provided coverage of $200,000.00 for hull and machinery and $1 ,000.000.00 for protection· and indemnity.

6. On or,: June 21,2010, the MN Emerald Express lost power to one of its engines, was unable to naviigate the current and waves, drifted, and then collided with an offshore drilling rig causing damage to the vessel.

7. Defendant has failed to pay the amount of the damages claim due Petitioners within thirty (30) days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss. Petitioners have provided a satisfactory proof of loss and requested payment in full Wlder the policy.

8. Defendants failure to pay the full amount of Petitioners' property damage claim within thirty days and the failure to make a written offer to settle Petitioners' property damage claim within thirty days is arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause. Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 22: 1892, in addition to the amount of damage sustained, Defendant is liable to Petitioners for fifty percent[(SO%) additional in penalties on the amount found to be due from Defendant to Petitioners. or $1.000.00, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney's fees.

9. Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 22: 1973, Defendant owes Petitioners a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the handling of this claim. Defendant also has an affirmative duty to adjust Petitioners claim fairly and promptly II.Ild to make a reasonable effort to settle Petitioners claim. Defendant has breached this duty and said breach has been arbitrary and capricoius and/or without probable cause.

10.Because of the actions alleged above, Defendant is liable to Petitioners, in addition to any general or special damages to which Petitioners are entitled for breach of the imposed duty set forth above, for penalties in an amount not to exceed twice the damages sustained or $5,000.00, whichever is greater, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 22:1973 and LSA-R.S. 22: 1893.

11. Petitioner has sustained general damages, in addition to the damages already alleged, due to Defendant's breach of the obligations imposed by LSA-R.S. 22:1973, LSA-R.S. 22:1892 and LSA-R.S. 22: 1893, including mental anguish., inconvenience. worry, and stress. Defendant is responsible f'1r these damages as well.

12. Petitioners have sustained damages valued at greater than $191 ,000.00 plus. legal interest penalties, costs and attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners pray:

(A.) That the Defendant be duly cited and served with a copy of this Petition for the Damages and be ordered to answer same in the manner provided by law.
(B.) That after due proceedings, there be judgment herein in favor of Petitioners, LA OILFIELD SERVICES, INC. and QUALITY OILFIELD, L.L.C. and against Defendant, INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, for such damages as the court finds to be just and reasonable, including penalties an attorney's fees, together with legal interest from the dste of judicial demand until paid and fro all costs hereof; and

(c) For all orders and decrees necessary in the premises and for full, general, and equitable relief. "

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.