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

MISSION SUPPORT ALLIANCE LLC v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

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: 
2:12-cv-05079 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Mission Support Alliance LLC
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Washington
Date Filed: 
Jun 15 2012

COUNT I
Declaratory Relief
15. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 14 are incorporated herein by reference.

16. An actual controversy exists between MSA and Westchester concerning the rights and obligations of the parties under the Policy.

17. MSA is entitled to a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under the Policy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

18. The declaratory relief sought includes, but is not limited to, declarations that: (a) coverage exists under the Policy for the Department of Energy’s claim; (b) by virtue of Westchester’s denial of any obligation to MSA under the Policy, MSA is excused from complying with any of the conditions allegedly imposed by the Westchester Policy, including but not limited to the Alternative Dispute Resolution clause in the Policy; (c) notwithstanding, MSA complied with all its obligations under the terms of the Policy and may properly bring this action consistent with the “Action Against Insurer” clause contained in the Policy; and (d) to the extent the Alternative Dispute Resolution clause in the Policy is deemed to apply, the Court should stay MSA’s contract claim (Count II) pending mediation and arbitration and allow the extracontractual claims (Count III) to proceed in this action.

COUNT II
Breach of Contract

19. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated herein by reference.

20. A contractual relationship exists between MSA and Westchester.

21. Westchester owed a duty under the Policy to investigate and pay for losses covered under the Policy.

22. Westchester breached that duty, proximately causing harm to MSA in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT III
Extra-Contractual Claims

23. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein by reference.

24. Westchester owed MSA a duty in tort and under applicable statutes, regulations, and common law to conduct a thorough investigation before denying its claim and to otherwise act reasonably and in good faith in investigating and analyzing coverage for MSA’s claim.

25. Westchester breached that duty by, among other things, unreasonably denying MSA’s claim for insurance benefits; proximately causing damage to MSA in an amount to be proven at trial.

26. Moreover, as a result of its conduct, Westchester is estopped from denying coverage for any liability MSA may have to the Department of Energy.

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.