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

POMALES 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: 
8:11-cv-01003 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Heriberto Pomales
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Middle District of Florida
Date Filed: 
May 6 2011

"22. Here, it remains uncertain as to whether Ace complied with the statutorily mandated requirements of providing annual notice regarding UM coverage, as Ace has continuously failed to cooperate and produce its underwriting file, agent's file, and all UM rejection forms

23. If Ace failed to comply with Flonda's statutory annual notice requirements as set forth above, then Ace will be required to provide full UM coverage to Pomales with the same limits as the liability limits set forth in the policy, regardless of the insured's initial rejection of UM coverage"

 

"24. Pomales incorporate and realleges paragraphs 1 through 23 above as if fully set forth herein

25. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Pomales and Ace concerning whether Ace property notified the insured of Us UM coverage options annually as set forth above, and as such, Pomales is in doubt of his rights and obligations under the policy

26. If Ace did not properly comply with the statutory requirements for annual notices regarding the msured's options with respect to the purchase of UM coverage, then Ace will be required to provide Pomales with UM coverage benefits of $2 million

27. Such UM coverage should reimburse Pomales for damages for injuries he suffered in the October 23, 2009 accident that he is legally entitled to recover from Alexandria M Valdez, the negligent owner and operator of an uninsured motor vehicle"

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.