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

NISRINE MINI MART, INC et al v. ACE AMERICAN 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-12546 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Nisrine Mini Mart, Inc.
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Eastern District of Michigan
Date Filed: 
Jun 12 2012

"COUNT I. Breach of Contract

23. Defendant ACE Insurance Company agreed to insure Plaintiff Nisrine Mmi Mart, Inc for consideration paid.

24 This insurance policy purported to cover all damages (up to $1,000,000) the insured becomes legally obligated to pay for "corrective action costs" resulting from an "underground storage tank incident" See Exhibit 2.
An "underground storage tank" is defined as a "release" from an "insured tank" of petroleum into the soil or surrounding area That a release was confirmed to have existed well within the policy period

27 Plaintiffs contracted with American Tank, Inc to update the underground storage tanks and paid $150,776.20 for the procedure

28.Defendants breached the insurance policy with Plaintiffs by the following actions, including but not limited to Failing to assist Plaintiff with updating the underground storage tanks; Failing to compensate Plaintiffs for their costs in updating the underground storage tanks; and By failing to perform on their obligations under the contract.

29.As a result of these failures Plaintiffs suffered substantial damages including but not limited to, monies paid to update the tanks, interest paid on Plaintiffs personal and business credit, and other costs

COUNT II. Unfairly failed to pay Insurance benefits. [MCL 500.2006(1)]

Defendant, ACE failed to compensate Plaintiffs for their claim for an apparent lack of documents submitted.

Plaintiffs maintain they had submitted sufficient documents to Defendant by the end of 2007. Defendants denied the claim on March 27, 2012 based on the same information they had in their possession for years The reasons cited for Defendant's denial of the claim are objectively vague, broad, and unclear. A vague and unclear denial shows that Defendant's denial is unreasonable.  Unreasonable denials are considered bad faith denials.  Plaintiff is entitled to 12% per annum interest from December 2007 until May 2012 on the monies paid to remedy the underground storage tanks."

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.