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

MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC v. SWISS RE INTERNATIONAL S.E. 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: 
1:12-cv-01460 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Motiva Enterprises LLC
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of Delaware
Date Filed: 
Nov 13 2012

"COUNT I
(Injunction of an Arbitration Proceeding)
48. Motiva repeats and realleges all of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

49. Defendants have purported to initiate arbitration proceedings against Motiva relating to claims of liability and contract interpretation.

50. The plain language of the Policy requires the parties to pursue all claims arising from the Policy, excluding only claims regarding the amount to be paid, in the courts of the State of Delaware.

51. Defendants chose to ignore the parties’ agreed upon choice of forum and instead initiated arbitration proceedings in London.

52. Pursuant to the DUAA, 10 Del. C. § 5703(b), and 10 Del. C. §§ 341-42, this Court should enter an Order temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoining Defendants from arbitrating any disputes with Motiva that do not relate to the amount to be paid under the Policy. Specifically, inter alia, the Court should temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoin Defendants from proceeding with the arbitration they purported to initiate on November 6, 2012 through their Notice to Arbitrate.

53. Motiva has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT II
(Declaratory Relief)

54. Motiva repeats and realleges all of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

55. Defendants have purported to initiate arbitration proceedings against Motiva relating to claims of liability and contract interpretation.

56. The plain language of the Policy requires the parties to pursue all claims arising from the Policy, excluding only claims regarding the amount to be paid under the Policy, in the courts of the State of Delaware.

57. Defendants chose to ignore the parties’ agreed upon choice of forum and instead initiated arbitration proceedings in London.

58. Thus, the issues raised by Motiva in this Verified Complaint present a controversy that:

(1) involves the rights or other legal relations of Motiva, insofar as the declaration sought will clarify what the parties’ rights are under the terms of the Policy;
(2) comprises a claim of right or other legal interest by Motiva that is asserted pursuant to the Policy against Defendants who have an interest in contesting the claim to minimize or avoid their own obligations under the Policy;
(3) is between parties whose interests are real and adverse, pursuant to their differing interpretations of their rights and obligations under the Policy and applicable principles of law;
(4) is ripe for judicial declaration because: (a) Defendants have filed an arbitration action seeking to force Motiva to submit to arbitration and select an arbitrator; (b) until this Court declares that the choice of law and venue provisions are enforceable and precludes Defendants from pursuing arbitration for any claims arising out of the Policy (with the limited exception of claims for the amount to be paid), Motiva is faced with uncertainty as to its legal obligations under the Policy’s provision regarding appointment of an arbitrator; and (c) as result of the foregoing, Motiva has incurred and is continuing to incur significant expense regarding an arbitration that should never have been filed.

59. Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 6501, this Court should enter a declaration proclaiming that the Policy prohibits Defendants from arbitrating with Motiva any issues arising out of or relating to the Policy with the exception of the amount to be paid.

COUNT III
(Breach of Contract)

60. Motiva repeats and realleges all of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

61. The Policy is a legally valid and enforceable contract by and among Motiva and Defendants.

62. Motiva has duly performed all of the conditions and duties imposed on it under the Policy and at all times has remained ready, willing, and able to continue doing so.

63. By the conduct described above, including Defendants’ refusal to comply with the Policy’s dispute resolution provisions, Defendants have, without justification or excuse, breached their contractual duties, including their implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing owed to Motiva pursuant to the Policy.

64. Defendants have expressly breached Sections Four and Thirteen of the Policy General Conditions and Section Ten of the Policy Schedule by initiating arbitration proceedings for claims relating to liability, Policy interpretation, and resolution of Motiva’s fraud and misrepresentation claims instead of pursuing these claims in the parties’ agreed upon forum of Delaware state courts.

65. Defendants’ breaches are willful.

66. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches."

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.