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

PERINI/TOMPKINS JOINT VENTURE 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: 
8:10-cv-03494 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Perini/Tompkins Joint Venture
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of Maryland
Date Filed: 
Dec 13 2010

"15. A representative from ACE was onsite at the Project on September 5, 2007 during the Collapse and thereafter, received timely updates regarding the reason for the Collapse, the scope and extent of related damages and the method and cost of repair.
16. Thereafter, representatives of PTJV communicated at length with ACE in an effort to have the claim properly and timely adjusted and resolved.
17. After much negotiation, ACE formally accepted the claim and agreed to handle the matter by letter dated February 23, 2010.
18. Thereafter, PTJV made multiple requests to ACE regarding the status of the claim and demanding that ACE make payment and ACE continually represented it would work with PTJV to resolve the claim.
19. Contrary to its representations, however, ACE failed and/or refused to make any payment or substantively respond to PTJV’s demands.
20. By electronic mail dated October 6, 2010 to representatives of PTJV, ACE reversed its position and refused to make any payment on the claim on the basis that it had been directed not to do so by Gaylord and the broker for the Policies.
21. In connection with that e-mail, ACE represented it would retain counsel to review the claim and assist in reaching a resolution, however, did not do so until approximately one month later on November 8, 2010.
22. Yet, as of December 2, 2010, such counsel had not received any materials from ACE and not conducted any review of the claim.23. ACE has continually represented to PTJV its intent to adjust this claim in good faith yet, at every critical juncture, has failed and/or refused to do so.
FIRST COUNT (BREACH OF CONTRACT BAD FAITH/BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING)..."
 

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.