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

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION v. ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS 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.

Opposing Party: 
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District Court for the District of Columbia
Date Filed: 
Aug 11 2014

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak"), for its Complaint for a
declaratory judgment and damages against Defendants, alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, Amtrak seeks a declaration of the rights,
duties, and obligations of the parties under the liability insurance policies sold by the Defendant
insurance companies, and their predecessors, to Amtrak. Because Defendants have refused to
pay Amtrak's defense and liability costs associated with certain environmental sites and bodily
injury claims, actual controversies exist between the parties for which a judgment setting forth
their respective rights and obligations is necessary. Amtrak also seeks damages because of
certain Defendants' breach of contract.

PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Amtrak is a corporation organized under the Rail Passenger Service Act
of 1970, 49 U.S.C. § 24701 etseq.
3. Defendant Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company ("Allianz") is a California
corporation whose principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois. At all relevant times,
Allianz was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District of
Columbia.
4. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation whose principal
place of business is in Northbrook, Illinois. Allstate Insurance Company is the successor to
Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company and Northbrook Insurance Company
(together "Allstate"). At all relevant times, Allstate was authorized to do business and conducted
and transacted business in the District of Columbia.
5. Defendant American Home Assurance Company ("American Home") is a New
York corporation whose principal place of business is in New York, New York. At all relevant
times, American Home was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in
the District of Columbia.
6. Defendant American Insurance Company ("American Insurance") is an Ohio
corporation whose principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois. At all relevant times,
American Insurance was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the
District of Columbia.
7. Defendant Argonaut Insurance Company ("Argonaut") is an Illinois corporation
whose principal place of business is in San Antonio, Texas. At all relevant times, Argonaut was
authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District of Columbia.
8. Defendant Century Indemnity Company is a Pennsylvania corporation whose
principal place of business is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Century Indemnity Company is the
successor to California Union Insurance Company and Insurance Company of North America
(together "Century Indemnity"). At all relevant times, Century Indemnity was authorized to do
business and conducted and transacted business in the District of Columbia.
9. Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London include individuals who
compose Syndicates organized under the laws of the United Kingdom with their principal place
of business in London, U.K. Defendants London Market Insurance Companies are corporations
organized under the laws of the United Kingdom with their principal place of business in
London, U.K. At all relevant times, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and the London
Market Insurance Companies (together "London") conducted and transacted business in the
District of Columbia.
10. Defendant Employers Insurance Company of Wausau ("Wausau") is a Wisconsin
corporation whose principal place of business is in Boston, Massachusetts. At all relevant times,
Wausau was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District of
Columbia.
11. Defendant Evanston Insurance Company ("Evanston") is an Illinois corporation
whose principal place of business is in Deerfield, Illinois. At all relevant times, Evanston was
authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District of Columbia.
12. Defendant First State Insurance Company ("First State") is a Connecticut
corporation whose principal place of business is in Boston, Massachusetts. At all relevant times,
First State was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District of
Columbia.
13. Defendant Granite State Insurance Company ("Granite State") is a Pennsylvania
corporation whose principal place of business is in New York, New York. At all relevant times,
Granite State was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District
of Columbia.
14. Defendant Harbor Insurance Company ("Harbor Insurance") is an Oklahoma
corporation whose principal place of business is in Tulsa, Oklahoma. At all relevant times,
Harbor Insurance was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the
District of Columbia.
15. Defendant Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania ("Insurance Co. of
Pa") is a Pennsylvania corporation whose principal place of business is in New York, New York.
At all relevant times, Insurance Co. of Pa was authorized to do business and conducted and
transacted business in the District of Columbia.
16. Defendant Interstate Reinsurance Corporation ("Interstate Re") is an Illinois
Corporation whose principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois. At all relevant times,
Interstate Re was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District
of Columbia.
17. Defendant Landmark Insurance Company ("Landmark") is a California
corporation whose principal place of business is in Boston, Massachusetts. At all relevant times,
Landmark was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District of
Columbia.
18. Defendant Lexington Insurance Company ("Lexington") is a Delaware
corporation whose principal place of business is in Boston, Massachusetts. At all relevant times,
Lexington was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District of
Columbia.
19. Defendant Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation whose
principal place of business is in Princeton, New Jersey. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. is the
successor to American Reinsurance Company (together "Munich Re"). At all relevant times,
Munich Re was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District
of Columbia.
20. Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA ("National
Union") is a Pennsylvania corporation whose principal place of business is in New York, New
York. At all relevant times, National Union was authorized to do business and conducted and
transacted business in the District of Columbia.
21. Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("Nationwide") is an Ohio
corporation with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. At all relevant times,
Nationwide was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District
of Columbia.
22. Defendant Northwestern National Insurance Company is a Wisconsin corporation
whose principal place of business is in West Chester, Ohio. Northwestern National Insurance
Company (together "Northwestern National") is the successor to Belief onte Insurance Company.
At all relevant times, Northwestern National was authorized to do business and transacted
business in the District of Columbia.
23. Defendant Pacific Insurance Company ("Pacific Insurance") is a Connecticut
corporation with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. At all relevant times,
Pacific Insurance was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the
District of Columbia.
24. Defendant Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company of America ("Yasuda") is a
New York corporation whose principal place of business is in New York, New York. At all
relevant times, Yasuda was authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in
the District of Columbia.
25. Defendant Yosemite Insurance Company ("Yosemite") is an Indiana corporation
whose principal place of business is in Evansville, Indiana. At all relevant times, Yosemite was
authorized to do business and conducted and transacted business in the District of Columbia.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26. Subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1349, because Amtrak was created by an Act of Congress and the United States government
owns more than half of Amtrak's stock.
27. Personal jurisdiction exists over each Defendant because the Defendants' contacts
with the District of Columbia, including their sale of insurance policies to Amtrak and others in
the District of Columbia, satisfy the constitutional requirement of minimum contacts with the
forum.
28. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because "a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" in this district, and Plaintiff Amtrak
suffered damages in this district.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Insurance Policies
29. From 1972 to 1986, Amtrak purchased excess general liability insurance policies
from each of the Defendants (the "Amtrak Policies") to protect itself from liability incurred as a
result of its business activities.
30. Amtrak paid substantial premiums to purchase the Amtrak Policies. The Amtrak
Policies require Defendants to indemnify Amtrak for defense costs and all sums that Amtrak
becomes legally obligated to pay as a result of bodily injury or property damage, as long as any
part of the bodily injury or property damage for which Amtrak is liable occurred during the
policy period. The contractual obligations of Defendants are subject to the limits of liability
stated in each of the policies.
31. The policy numbers, periods and limits of the Amtrak Policies are identified in the
schedule of insurance policies attached as Schedule A, which is incorporated by reference as if
fully set forth herein.
32. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 24301(0 (1994), originally 45 U.S.C. § 546(d) (1970),
repealed Dec. 2, 1997, the Amtrak Policies are governed by and are to be interpreted under the
laws of the District of Columbia.

The Claims
Property Damage Claims
33. Amtrak seeks insurance coverage in this action for (i) defense costs and liability
("Property Damage Claims") related to various environmental sites located throughout the
United States (collectively, the "Sites") including, but not limited to, Delaware, New York, and
Illinois.
34. Environmental property damage happened at each of the Sites during the periods
of the Amtrak Policies.
35. Amtrak has conducted, and will conduct, investigation and clean-up activities at
the Sites pursuant to orders and directives from regulatory agencies.
36. Amtrak has complied with all terms and conditions of the Amtrak Policies,
including payment of premiums and providing notice of the Property Damage Claims to the
Defendants.
37. Amtrak is entitled to all benefits provided by the Amtrak Policies.
38. Amtrak has incurred to date more than $40,000,000 in costs to investigate and
remediate the Sites and will continue to incur costs to defend, investigate and resolve its
liabilities at the Sites.
39. The Defendants have failed to indemnify Amtrak for Amtrak's defense costs and
liability and have refused to provide insurance coverage related to the Property Damage Claims.
Bodily Injury Claims
40. Amtrak seeks insurance coverage in this action for defense costs and liability
related to third-party bodily injury claims related to: (i) exposure to asbestos; (ii) hearing loss;
(iii) repetitive stress injury; and (iv) exposure to deleterious substances (collectively, the "Bodily
Injury Claims") (collectively, the Property Damage Claims and Bodily Injury Claims are the
"Liability Claims").
41. The bodily injuries alleged in the Bodily Injury Claims occurred during the
periods of the Amtrak Policies and occurred in a multitude of States and jurisdictions
nationwide.
42. Amtrak has incurred, and will continue to incur, substantial costs in defending
against, settling or otherwise resolving the Bodily Injury Claims.
43. Amtrak has complied with all terms and conditions of the Amtrak Policies,
including payment of premiums and providing notice of the Bodily Injury Claims to the
Defendants.
44. Amtrak is entitled to all benefits provided by the Amtrak Policies.
45. Amtrak has incurred to date more than $92,000,000 in defense and liability costs
in connection with the Bodily Injury Claims.
46. The Defendants have failed to indemnify Amtrak for Amtrak's defense costs and
liability and have refused to provide insurance coverage related to the Bodily Injury Claims.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
47. Amtrak repeats each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 46 as
if fully set forth herein.
48. The insurance policies at issue in this action provide Amtrak with insurance
coverage for defense costs and liability arising from property damage and bodily injury.
49. The Defendants are obligated to indemnify Amtrak for Amtrak's payment of its
defense costs and liabilities associated with the Property Damage Claims and Bodily Injury
Claims during the periods of the Amtrak Policies.
50. Amtrak suffered environmental property damage at the Sites during the periods of
the Amtrak Policies.
51. Amtrak has incurred defense costs and liabilities as a result of the Property
Damage Claims.
52. The bodily injuries alleged in the Bodily Injury Claims occurred during the
periods of the Amtrak policies.
53. Amtrak has incurred defense costs and liabilities as a result of the Bodily Injury
Claims.
54. The Defendants have failed to indemnify Amtrak with respect to its defense costs
associated with the Liability Claims.
55. The Defendants have failed to indemnify Amtrak with respect to costs of cleanup
and settlement associated with the Liability Claims.
56. An actual and justifiable controversy currently exists between Amtrak and
Defendants with respect to the duties and obligations of Defendants under the Amtrak Policies to
indemnify Amtrak for Amtrak's payment of its defense costs and liabilities incurred in
connection with the Liability Claims.
57. Amtrak thus seeks a judicial determination by this Court of the obligation of
Defendants to indemnify Amtrak with regard to its defense costs and liabilities arising from the
Liability Claims. Such a judicial determination is necessary and appropriate at this time under
the circumstances alleged.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
58. Amtrak reasserts the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 57 as if fully set forth
herein.
59. Certain of the Defendants have breached the terms of the Amtrak Policies in the
following respects:
(a) Certain of the Defendants have failed to indemnify Amtrak for, or pay any
of, Amtrak's defense costs in connection with the investigations of environmental property
damage associated with the Sites;
(b) Certain of the Defendants have failed to indemnify Amtrak for, or pay any
of, Amtrak's liability in connection with the cleanup of environmental property damage
associated with the Sites;
(c) Certain of the Defendants have failed to indemnify Amtrak for, or pay any
of, Amtrak's defense costs in connection with the Bodily Injury Claims; and
(d) Certain of the Defendants have failed to indemnify Amtrak, or pay any of,
Amtrak's liability in connection with the Bodily Injury Claims;
60. As a direct and proximate result of certain of the Defendants' breaches of
contract, those Defendants have deprived Amtrak of the benefit of the insurance coverage for
which Amtrak paid substantial premiums.
61. As a direct and proximate result of certain of the Defendants' breaches of
contract, Amtrak has sustained and will sustain substantial damages, in an amount to be
determined at trial, including but not limited to, the sums spent and to be spent to investigate,
defend, and resolve the environmental property damage associated with the Sites and the sums
spent and to be spent to resolve and settle the Bodily Injury claims including, without limitation,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, defense costs, and interest.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Amtrak requests a judgment against each Defendant as follows:
(a) On the First Claim for Relief, that this Court determine and declare that
each Defendant is obligated under its respective Amtrak Policy or Policies to indemnify Amtrak
for Amtrak's payment of its defense costs and liability associated with the Liability Claims,
subject to policy limits.
(b) On the Second Claim for Relief, for damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.
(c) On all claims for relief, for Amtrak's reasonable attorneys' fees, interest,
costs, and the expenses of this action.
(d) For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

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.