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

NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD et al v. WESTCHESTER FIRE 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: 
2:11-cv-00786 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
National Fire Insurance Company Of Hartford
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of California
Date Filed: 
Mar 22 2011

"This is an action seeking equitable contribution and a declaration of the 5obligations of certain insurance carriers which covered the liability risks of an entity known as Urata & Sons Cement, Inc. (“Urata”), which was a party to an action previously pending before this Court. Plaintiffs paid to settle Urata’s liabilities in that action, whereas Defendants did not. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants should have also contributed to the settlement, and therefore seek relief described herein."

 

"24. Shortly before a court-ordered settlement conference scheduled in the UnderlyingAction, WESTCHESTER announced that it refused to contribute to or reimburse the expense for settling and indemnifying Urata’s potential liabilities in the Underlying Action.  WESTCHESTER further announced that it would withdraw and terminate further defense of Urata within 15 days.

25. WESTCHESTER’s action was wrongful and constituted an anticipatory breach of its insuring agreement with Urata. The reasons given by WESTCHESTER for its decision to refuse to pay settlement and to withdraw its defense were unfounded and erroneous."

 

"40. In particular, Plaintiffs contend, and Defendants deny the following:
a. Defendants WESTCHESTER FIRE and WESTCHESTER SURPLUS had a duty to defend Urata against the claims, demands, actions and causes of action asserted against it in the Underlying Action;
b. Defendants’ decision to withdraw from the defense of Urata was improper and constituted a breach of its insuring agreement;
c. Defendant had and has an equitable duty and responsibility to pay a fair and proportionate share of the indemnity incurred on behalf of Urata, and
d. the costs associated with the indemnity of Urata should be equitably apportioned between and among Plaintiffs and Defendant under applicable law and equitable principles."

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.